PROTECTING  PUBLIC  LANDS. 


SPEECH 


HON.  LEWIS  E.  PAYSON, 

OF  ILLINOIS, 


IN  THE 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 


MONDAY,  JUNE  28,  1886. 


WASHINGTON. 
1  886. 


r 


Protecting  Public  Lands* 


SPEECH 

OK 

HON.  LEWIS  E.  PAYSON.  - 


The  House  being  in  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the  state  of  the  Union,  and 
having  under  consideration  the  bill  (H.  R.  9478)  making  appropriations  for  sun¬ 
dry  civil  expenses  of  the  Government  for  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30, 1887,  and 
for  other  purposes,  the  pending  paragraph  being: 

“  Protecting  public  lands  :  For  the  protection  of  public  lands  from  illegal  and 
fraudulent  entry  or  appropriation,  $90,000” — 

Mr.  PAYSON  said: 

Mr.  Chairman:  I  have  no  apology  to  make  when  I  ask  the  attention 
of  the  House  for  the  time  allotted  me  while  I  discuss  a  few  of  the  ques¬ 
tions  presented  by  the  proposition  offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Ne¬ 
braska  [Mr.  Laird].  During  my  term  of  service  here  I  have  never 
sought  to  attract  the  attention  of  the  House  unless  I  thought  I  had  some¬ 
thing  to  submit  worthy  of  its  consideration  and  directly  connected  with 
a  practical,  pending  proposition.  And  I  would  but  assert  the  veriest 
truism  if  I  said  the  questions  involved  in  this  discussion  are  of  great  im¬ 
portance  to  the  people  of  this  nation. 

No  one  connected  with  public  affairs  can  have  failed  to  notice  the 
amount  of  public  lands  remaining  for  disposal  is  being  in  some  way 
rapidly  diminished,  and  it  has  been  a  matter  of  earnest  investigation  on 
the  part  of  the  best  men  connected  with  Congress  for  the  last  six  years 
in  both  Houses,  as  well  as  those  occupying  executive  positions,  to  de¬ 
termine  precisely  what  the  evil  was,  the  extent  of  it,  and  the  remedy 
for  it. 

At  the  outset,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  bound  to  notice  there  has  been 
an  attempt  made  to  give  this  debate  a  partisan  character.  When  the 
legislative  appropriation  bill  was  under  discussion  under  a  motion  I  be¬ 
lieve  to  strike  out  the  last  word  of  the  pending  paragraph,  the  gentle¬ 
man  from  Nebraska  [Mr.  Laird]  and  the  gentleman  from  Maine  [Mr. 
Reed]  and  a  lew  other  gentlemen  vigorously  rushed  to  the  front  de¬ 
nouncing  the  present  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office  and  his 
official  conduct  and  apparently  expecting  the  gentlemen  on  the  other 
side  of  the  Chamber  to  champion  him  and  protect  him  from  the  criti¬ 
cisms  passed  upon  him. 

It  seems  to  be  expected  as  a  matter  of  course  that  the  vigorous  assaults 
made  by  gentlemen  on  this  side  upon  the  Land  Office  shall  be  replied 
to  and  the  course  of  the  Commissioner  justified,  if  at  all,  by  those  of 
his  political  party. 

Sir,  there  is  no  question  of  party  politics  involved  here.  The  ques- 

ion  is  one  of  orderly,  proper  administration  of  executive  duty,  and 

hould  be  discussed  with  that  impartiality,  candor,  and  calm  consid- 


4 


erateness  which  alone  in  a  legislative  body  can  produce  satisfactory  re¬ 
sults. 

With  the  general  course  of  procedure  in  the  Interior  Department  as 
relates  to  the  public-land  system  since  the  present  administration  came 
into  power  I  may  say  without  boasting  I  have  been  intimately  famil¬ 
iar. 

When  it  took  charge  of  affairs  it  found  accumulated  evidences  of 
frauds  upon  the  public  lands  gathered  in  by  Republican  agents  appointed 
by  Secretary  Teller  and  Commissioner  McFarland,  many  of  which  have 
been  so  recently  read  and  referred  to  in  the  House  as  to  render  a  reread¬ 
ing  unnecessary. 

There  was  found,  also,  an  appalling  state  of  affairs  as  to  the  unlaw¬ 
ful  inclosing  of  the  public  lands — millions  upon  millions  of  acres  of 
public  lands  inclosed  with  barbed- wire  fences,  many  of  these  erected 
by  foreigners. 

Notices  had  been  served  upon  the  parties  in  possession;  Commissioner 
McFarland  had  sent  out  formal  circulars  against  them,  but  all  was  in¬ 
effectual. 

The  slow  methods  of  litigation  under  common-law  rules  had  been 
invoked,  but  these  were  not  productive  of  results. 

A  statute  has  been  euacted  by  the  Forty-eighth  Congress  for  the  sum¬ 
mary,  efficient  cure  of  the  evil,  but  too  late  to  be  enforced  by  the  out¬ 
going  Republican  administration. 

The  bill  which  became  a  law  I  had  the  honor  to  introduce,  and  I  had 
been  connected  with  some  matters  of  land  reform  with  other  gentlemen 
on  the  Committee  on  the  Public  Lands,  with  which  I  desire  to  say  Mr. 
Teller  and  Mr.  McFarland  were  in  hearty  sympathy. 

This  was  known  to  Mr.  Secretary  Lamar,  and  early  in  his  experience 
at  the  head  of  that  Department  he  did  me  the  honor  to  ask  me  to  give 
him  the  benefit  of  my  experience  and  observation  as  to  these  matters, 
and  I  unreservedly  did  so. 

This  led  to  an  intimacy  between  us,  which  otherwise  would  probably 
never  have  existed,  and  j  ustifies  me  in  saying  what  I  take  especial  pleas¬ 
ure  in,  that  from  the  first  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  and  the  Commis¬ 
sioner  of  the  General  Land  Office  have  been  inspired  by  the  desire  to 
honestly,  efficiently,  and  thoroughly  administer  the  land  laws,  so  that 
the  public  domain  should  be  utilized  for  the  benefit  of  actual  settlers. 
The  official  reports  at  their  hands  showed  an  actual  necessity  for  some 
earnest,  vigorous  action.  As  against  the  unlawful  inclosures,  a  procla¬ 
mation  by  the  President  was  issued,  and  orders  given  at  once  to  the  law 
officers  to  proceed  criminally,  if  necessary,  against  offenders,  unless  the 
new  law  was  obeyed. 

As  against  fraudulent  entries  of  the  public  lands,  various  plans  were 
considered.  That  the  evil  was  enormous  was  conceded  by  everybody. 

The  last  administration  had  hoped  that  the  laws  allowing  pre-em  ption, 
timber-culture,  and  desert-land  entries  would  be  repealed. 

It  had  repeatedly  urged  upon  Congress  the  necessity  of  such  action, 
and  a  modification  of  the  commutation  feature  of  the  homestead  law. 
Under  these  acts  as  they  stood  these  frauds  had  been  perpetrated,  and 
the  last  administration  earnestly  endeavored  to  secure  such  Congres¬ 
sional  action  as  should  render  the  further  perpetration  impossible. 

The  bill,  as  recommended,  passed  the  House,  and  with  an  amendment, 
not  germane,  the  Senate;  the  House,  late  in  the  short  session,  would 
not  concur  in  the  Senate  amendment,  and  so  the  bill  failed. 

Congress,  and  not  the  last  Republican  administration,  was  to  blame  for 


5 


this.  This  was  the  situation ;  and  after  a  great  deal  of  consideration, 
as  I  know,  on  the  part  of  those  who  had  made  the  subject  a  study  and 
were  familiar  with  the  official  reports  and  statements,  the  order  of  April 
3,  1885,  which  I  will  refer  to  later,  was  issued. 

At  the  outset  I  desire  to  say,  Mr.  Chairman,  and  in  as  plain  lan¬ 
guage  as  I  can  express  the  proposition,  once  for  all,  because  I  do  not 
wish  to  be  misunderstood  in  reference  to  it,  that,  so  far  as  the  order  of 
Commissioner  Sparks  of  April  3,  1885,  is  concerned,  as  a  member  of  the 
Committee  on  Public  Lands  I  was  consulted  in  reference  to  the  pro¬ 
priety  of  its  issuance,  and  under  the  circumstances  as  I  have  stated 
them,  I  counseled  and  advised  that  it  should  be  issued.  And  I  stand 
by  that  order  to-day,  and  whatever  criticism  may  be  imposed  in  refer¬ 
ence  to  it  I  am  ready  and  willing  to  bear  my  share  of  it. 

I  am  ready  now  and  here  to  defend  the  policy  as  well  as  the  legality 
of  it,  and  I  hope  to  make  myself  fully  understood  with  reference  to  it 
before  I  am  done,  and  whatever  credit  may  attach  to  an  honest  effort 
to  stay  the  tide  of  fraud  and  corruption  then  and  now  painfully  appar¬ 
ent,  I  shall  in  like  manner  insist  on  having  my  share. 

The  only  regret  I  have  is  it  was  not  continued  in  force  until  to-day  for 
the  reasons  I  shall  give  a  little  further  on.  [Applause.  ] 

Mr.  Chairman,  the  evil  sought  to  be  remedied  by  that  order  is  noth¬ 
ing  new. 

When  the  legislative  bill  was  under  debate  this  discussion  was  be¬ 
gun.  To  the  observer  it  would  appear  that  it  was  a  Republican  attack 
on  Democratic  methods,  as  such. 

Why,  the  gentleman  from  Maine  announced  here  that  when  Mr. 
Sparks  first  went  into  that  office,  and  before  he  had  fairly  got  warmed 
in  his  seat,  he  suddenly  discovered  that  great  frauds  were  being  com¬ 
mitted  upon  Ihe  public-lands  system.  I  wish  to  state  to  him  that  he 
is  mistaken.  The  performance  of  his  committee  work  has  not  famil¬ 
iarized  him  with  reference  to  the  condition  of  affairs  connected  with 
the  public-lands  system.  I  say  to  him  what  I  know  of  my  own  per¬ 
sonal  knowledge  when  I  tell  him  that  in  the  Forty-eighth  Congress — 
no,  earlier  than  that;  in  the  Forty-seventh  Congress — this  matter  was 
a  subject  of  serious  consideration  on  the  part  of  Secretary  Kirkwood, 
Secretary  Teller,  and  Commissioner  McFarland,  and,  as  a  member  of  the 
Committee  on  the  Public  Lands,  I  was  frequently  in  consultation  with 
these  gentlemen  at  their  request  in  reference  to  these  very  matters.  I 
hold  in  my  hand  an  interview  with  Commissioner  McFarland,  published 
in  1884,  and  which  is  embodied  in  some  remarks  I  submitted  to  this  House 
on  the  7th  June  of  this  year,  where,  if  gentlemen  will  take  the  trouble 
to  examine,  they  will  see  that  the  very  evils  out  of  which  this  debate 
has  arisen  to-day  were  conditions  which  were  then  subjects  of  consid¬ 
eration  by  the  Commissioner  of  the  Public  Land  Office,  and  that  his 
special  agents  were  making  these  reports  to  the  office  at  that  very  date. 
Perhaps  I  can  not  do  better  than  to  read  an  extract  or  two  from  that 
interview,  premising  it  by  saying  simply  that  I  know  the  words  quoted 
here  by  the  newspaper  reporter  were  a  part  of  Commissioner  McFar¬ 
land’s  own  language.  In  reply  to  the  question,  “How  is  the  system  of 
special  agents  working?  ”  he  said: 

“Satisfactorily.  The  special  agents  have  been  in  the  field  about  six  months, 
and  reports  from  some  of  them  are  received  every  day.  I  have  examined  and 
acted  upon  about  eight  hundred  illegal  and  fraudulent  entries  reported  by  them. 
These  entries  covered  about  128,000  acres,  of  which  the  Government  would  have 
been  deprived  except  for  the  new  service.” 

“Have  any  of  the  persons  who  held  such  entries  appealed  from  the  finding  of 
the  special  agent  ?  ” 


6 


“  Yes;  in  eighty  cases  only  out  of  the  eight  hundred  examined  under  this  sys¬ 
tem  have  objections  been  offered  to  the  proposed  cancellation  of  the  entries. 
This  fact  is  significant  of  the  correctness  of  the  agents’  reports  and  of  the  wholly 
indefensible  character  of  the  impeached  entries.  The  reports  are  in  all  cases 
based  upon  a  personal  examination  by  the  agent  of  each  tract  of  land,  and  the 
entry  is  held  for  cancellation  except  upon  positive  evidence.  It  is  further  found 
that  in  few,  if  any,  of  the  eighty  cases  have  the  objections  come  from  the  persons 
in  who-e  names  the  entries  were  made.  They  usually  appear  to  be  from  per¬ 
sons  who  furnished  the  money  for  the  entries  or  bought  them  afterward.” 

“What  kinds  of  lands  did  these  fraudulent  entries  cover?” 

“Pine-timber  lands  in  Minnesota, Michigan,  Wisconsin, and  Missouri,  made 
ostensibly  for  settlement  under  the  pre-emption  and  commuted-homestead  laws, 
but  actually  to  obtain  the  valuable  timber  for  the  nominal  price  at  which  agri¬ 
cultural  lands  are  sold  to  set’lers*  The  principal  operators  are  persons  largely 
engaged  in  the  timber  business,  the  ‘  settler  ’  being  a  convenient  myth.  Another 
class  consists  of  timber  lands  in  California,  Oregon,  Nevada,  and  Washington 
Territory.  The  reports  of  special  agents,  particularly  in  California  and  Wash¬ 
ington  Territory,  disclose  a  combination  of  large  capitalists,  English  as  well  as 
American,  to  obtain  title  to  immense  tracts  of  timber  land  by  hiring  men,  women, 
and  children  to  swear  to  false  affidavits  that  they  make  the  entries  as  required 
by  law  for  their  own  use  and  benefit,  and  not  for  speculation.  The  prices  regu¬ 
larly  paid  for  a  set  of  false  entry  papers  range,  according  to  the  reports,  from 
§50  to  $100.  The  Government  gets  §2.50  an  acre,  the  land  perhaps  being  worth 
ten  times  its  cost  to  the  speculators.  Agricultural  lands  in  Dakota  have  alsa  re¬ 
ceived  marked  attention. 

“The  persons  concerned,  directly  or  indirectly,  embrace  English  peers,  East- 
ern  capitalists,  adventurous  spirits  who  emigrate  to  the  booming  Territory  to 
grow  up  with  the  country,  and  enterprising  land  agents  and  attorneys.  Pre¬ 
emption,  commuted-homestead,  and  timber-culture  entries  are  the  favorite  in¬ 
strumentalities  of  fraud  in  this  region.  No  sooner  is  a  township  of  land  sur¬ 
veyed  than  it  is  plastered  over  with  entries  and  filings  more  or  less  bogus,  but 
generally  more,  and  the  actual  settler  who  goes  to  stay,  the  farmer  who  is  to 
produce  the  subsistence  of  the  nation,  must  buy  off  these  pretended  claims  at 
high  rates  before  he  can  obtain  the  privilege  of  making  an  honest  entry  of  the 
land.  The  timber-culture  laws  have  proved  especially  advantageous  to  the 
fraudulent  control  of  public  lands.  The  principal  sphere  of  operations  under 
these  laws  is  at  present  Minnesota,  Dakota,  Kansas,  and  Nebraska. 

“The  failure  of  the  timber-culture  law  to  produce  the  results  contemplated 
and  its  success  in  promoting  fraudulent  land  entries  are  paralleled  by  the  des¬ 
ert-land  act,  the  frauds  under  which  are  committed  mainly  in  the  Pacific  States 
and  Territories.  But  the  frauds  do  not  stop  there.  The  Government  price  for 
coal  lands  is  from  §10  to  §20  an  acre.  Fraudulent  entries  of  coal  lands  are  made 
under  the  pre-emption  and  other  agricultural  laws.  The  reports  of  the  special 
agents  cover  heavy  transactions  of  this  sort  in  Colorado  and  other  States  in 
which  coal  abounds,  the  fraudulent  entries  proving  to  be  the  property  of  mining 
companies. 

“But  by  far  the  most  extensive  frauds  are  found  in  the  grazing  country,  where 
the  cattle-kings  have  fenced  in  the  country  by  whole  counties,  and  the  investi¬ 
gations  by  agents  show  that  the  land  within  these  inclosures  is  being  covered 
by  bogus  entries  made  by  employes  of  the  stockmen,  the  former  supplying  the 
needed  affidavits  of  settlement  and  the  latter  paying  the  land  office  fees  and 
pocketing  the  title.  Many  entries  of  this  class  have  been  canceled  or  held  for 
cancellation. 

“  The  practice  in  such  old  Territories  as  New  Mexico  and  Arizona  is  found  to 
be  that  the  cowboys  are  brought  up  in  squads  to  the  district  land  office  to  swear 
in  mellifluous  Spanish  names  to  affidavits  that  they  have  resided  on  the  land 
ten,  twelve,  or  twenty  years,  when  in  fact  they  may  have  not  been  in  the  Ter¬ 
ritory  as  many  months  or  days  ;  but  they  swear  all  the  same,  and  each  serves 
as  the  regulation  witness  for  the  other.  The  cost  of  160  acres  to  the  stock  com¬ 
pany  is  by  this  process  about  §18,  a  trifle  over  10  cents  an  acre.  In  the  newer 
Territories,  where  long  inhabitancy  is  not  so  easily  proven,  the  operation  is 
like  that  of  Democrats  repeating  in  New  York  city  elections.  A  gang  of  ‘  pre- 
emptors  ’  is  fitted  out,  who  make  all  the  entries  required  by  their  employers  by 
merely  adopting  a  sufficient  number  of  names  and  repeating  the  process  of 
.S'wearing  as  principals  and  witnesses  alternately.” 

Knowing  this  condition  of  affairs,  the  Secretaries  of  the  Interior  under 
the  last  and  this  administration,  as  well  as  the  Commissioners  of  the 
General  Land  Office  for  several  years  have  recommended  the  repeal  of 
these  laws. 

Mr.  MacFarland,  in  his  last  annual  report,  speaking  of  this  law,  says: 

In  my  last  annual  report  I  renewed  the  recommendation  frequently  made  by 


7 


my  predecessors  that  the  pre-emption  law  be  repealed.  Continued  experience 
•demonstrates  the  advisability  and  necessity  of  such  repeal.  The  objection  that 
much  good  has  heretofore  resulted  from  the  pre-emption  system,  and  that  it 
should  not  be  discontinued  because  abused,  appears  to  us  without  good  founda¬ 
tion  under  the  changed  conditions  created  by  the  homestead  laws. 

Our  committee  said  to  the  last  Congress,  and  I  emphasize  it  now  and 
here : 

Whole  townships  of  the  public  domain  have  been  acquired  under  this  law 
by  capitalists  who  do  not  reside  within  hundreds  of  miles  of  the  land,  and  never 
did.  They  have  secured  them  through  paid  agents  in  their  employ,  who  receive 
so  much  for  their  services  when  they  make  the  proof  necessary  to  entitle  them 
to  a  patent  from  the  Government,  and  assign  their  claims  to  their  employers. 
This  is  done,  of  course,  through  perjury  and  subornation  of  perjury,  for  each 
one  of  these  agents  or  claimants  is  required  to  make  settlement  on  the  pre¬ 
emption  claim  under  the  law,  and  he  must  make  oath  before  the  register  or  re- 
eeiver  of  the  land  district  in  which  the  lands  are  situate,  on  which  he  claims  to 
have  settled  for  the  purpose  of  pre-empting,  and  that  he  has  never  had  the  ben¬ 
efit  of  any  right  of  pre-emption  ;  that  he  has  not  settled  upon  and  improved 
such  land  to  sell  the  same  on  speculation,  but  in  good  faith  to  appropriate  it  to 
his  own  exclusive  use,  and  that  he  has  not  directly  or  indirectly  made  any 
agreement  or  contract  in  any  way  or  manner  with  any  person  whatsoever  by 
which  the  title  which  he  might  acquire  from  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  should  inure,  in  whole  or  in  part,  to  the  benefit  of  any  person  except  him¬ 
self.  And  yet  it  is  well  known  that  this  oath  is  daily  taken  by  parties  who  make 
it  under  contracts  such  as  we  have  indicated  above.  They  file  with  the  register 
of  the  proper  land  district  their  declaration,  make  their  proof,  affidavit,  and 
payment  required  by  the  law,  and  receive  their  title  and  transfer  the  same  to 
the  parties  with  whom  they  made  the  contract  before  they  attempted  to  make 
the  pre-emption. 

Here  let  me  remark  that  the  appropriation  now  before  us  is  not  asked 
for  the  continuation  of  an  old  service,  which  has  been  in  existence  for 
years.  It  was  inaugurated  on  an  appropriation  bill  in  the  Forty- seventh 
Congress  by  Republicans,  and  has  been  in  operation  only  about  four 
years. 

Mr.  LAIRD.  Let  me  ask  the  gentleman  a  question. 

Mr.  PAYSON.  Certainly. 

Mr.  LAIRD.  I  hold  in  my  hand  an  annual  report  of  Mr.  McFar¬ 
land,  concerning  which  the  gentleman  speaks,  and  I  find  on  page  146: 


Entire  number  of  entries  investigated . < .  3,563 

Entries  canceled .  680 

Entries  approved  after  investigation .  953 


Now - 

Mr.  PAYSON.  Nobody  disputes  that.  The  figures  to  which  you 
allude  run  back  for  years  and  years.  I  take  no  issue  with  the  gentle¬ 
man  on  that  subject.  The  office  is  now  over  three  years  behind.  A 
large  proportion,  if  not  the  largest  proportion,  of  these  entries  to  which 
he  refers  were  made  under  prior  administrations  and  before  the  special 
agents  were  set  to  work  to  investigate  the  frauds. 

Mr.  LAIRD.  Let  me  complete  the  statement. 

Mr.  PAYSON.  I  am  not  going  to  be  diverted  from  the  general  line 
of  remarks  which  I  had  designed  to  make  here  by  any  question  of 
veracity  as  to  the  personal  experience  or  general  observation  of  any 
gentleman  who  may  represent  land  districts  and  who  may  have  formed 
his  own  opinions  in  reference  to  these  matters.  I  am  willing  to  con¬ 
cede  for  the  sake  of  the  argument  that  in  the  district  which  the  gentle¬ 
man  behind  me  [Mr.  Laird]  represents  the  people  who  have  gone  upon 
these  lands  are  all,  absolutely  all,  honest — though  I  do  not  believe  it, 
knowing  wffiat  the  records  show.  [Laughter.]  In  the  district  of  the 
gentleman  from  Kansas,  wffio,  I  understand,  is  to  follow  me  I  will  make 
the  same  admission.  But  I  want  to  ask  him  to  give  me  a  reason  why 
it  is  that  in  those  districts  nearly  every  land  agent  wffio  has  business 
there  advertises  as  a  prominent  feature  of  his  business  “Relinquish- 


8 


merits  for  sale.”  I  have  before  me  a  number  of  these  advertisements, 
which  I  hope  the  gentleman  will  not  overlook  when  he  comes  to  answer 
this  argument.  I  want  him  to  tell  me  what  he  thinks  of  that  kind  of 
practice  and  if  it  was  any  evidence  of  a  fraudulent  transaction  in  the 
public  lands  as  a  part  of  the  business  of  those  who  engaged  in  sending 
these  advertisements  out. 

I  will  insert  some  of  these,  omitting  the  names  of  the  parties,  for  I 
do  not  care  to  give  them  the  benefit  of  the  advertisement: 

Real  estate  and  Government  land  agents. 

All  business  before  the  United  States  Land  Office  correctly  and  promptly  at¬ 
tended  to.  Relinquishments  for  sale.  Town  lots  and  city  property  for  sale 
or  rent.  Special  attention  given  to  collections. 

Richfield,  Morton  County,  Kansas. 

Contesting  claims  a  specialty. 


Land  attorneys. 

Locate  settlers  on  Government  land.  Relinquishments  always  on  hand.  Con¬ 
tests  a  specialty.  Correspondence  solicited. 


Come  all,  and  come  quick.  We  have  deeded  land  and  relinquishments  so  cheap 
it  will  make  you  smile.  There  are  also  a  few  pieces  of  Government  land  left, 
but  will  soon  be  gone.  Come  and  see  us. 

Real  estate,  loan,  insurance,  and  financial  agents,  Jetmore,  Kans.  Office  on 

Main  street. 

Real  estate  agents,  Gandy,  Sherman  County,  Kansas. 

School  lands,  deeded  lands,  homesteads,  and  timber  entry. 

Relinquishments  bought  and  sold. 

Refer  to  any  of  the  banks  in  the  Oberlin  land  district.  Correspondence  solic¬ 
ited. 

The  records  at  the  Land  Office  show  the  methods  by  which  these  “re¬ 
linquishments  ”  are  made  available,  and  their  fraudulent,  speculative 
character. 

Mr.  Chairman,  the  method  is  this:  the  speculative  entryman  makes 
a  “filing  ”  on  a  tract:  the  books  at  the  local  office,  of  course,  note  the 
fact,  and  the  land  is  technically  1  ‘  taken.  ’  ’ 

The  law  provides  that  when  a  ‘  ‘  filing  ”  on  a  homestead  or  pre-emp¬ 
tion  is  ‘  ‘  relinquished  ’  ’  at  the  local  land  office,  the  land  shall  thereupon 
be  restored  and  become  a  part  of  the  public  domain.  The  ‘  ‘  relinquish¬ 
ment  ”  is  executed,  put  into  the  hands  of  these  agents  (those  named 
being  all  in  the  district  of  the  gentleman  from  Kansas,  Mr.  Peters)  for 
sale,  and  the  settler,  if  he  gets  the  lands,  must  buy  the  speculative  re¬ 
linquishment,  or  enter  a  contest  to  defeat  it;  it  is  cheaper  to  buy,  and 
he  does  so;  takes  the  relinquishment  to  the  local  office,  files  it,  thus 
releases  the  land,  and  then  makes  his  an  original  entry. 

That  is  the  method,  and  it  is  susceptible  of  easy  proof  at  the  General 
Land  Office,  that  this  practice,  illegal  and  unlawful  as  it  is,  has  as¬ 
sumed  immense  proportions. 

Under  the  law,  every  entry  for  homestead  or  pre-emption  must  be 
bona  fide  for  settlement  by  the  entryman.  These  almost  exclusively  are 
for  speculation,  and  to  fleece  the  settler  who  really  wants  the  land  for 
a  home. 

I  know  it  will  be  said  that  there  are  cases  where  bona  fide  settlers, 
because  of  illness,  misfortune,  &c.,  become  discontented  and  desire  to 
or  are  compelled  to  sell  their  settlement  rights.  True  enough;  but 
there  are  exceptional  cases,  and  no  one  will  pretend  to  assert  that  they 
are  of  sufficient  volume  to  cause  the  conspicuous  advertisements  I  pre¬ 
sent. 

But  to  return.  I  do  not  know  how  it  may  be  in  the  district  directly 


9 


represented  by  the  gentleman  who  has  spoken,  for  I  kuow  nothing  ex¬ 
cept  from  the  records;  but  this  I  do  know,  that  the  Commissioner  of 
the  General  Land  Office  could  not  act  efficiently  or  at  all  except  upon 
reports  made  to  him  by  the  duly  accredited  agents  of  the  Department. 
I  do  not  see  how  he  could  otherwise  act  intelligently  upon  the  questions. 
It  is  alleged — in  fact  it  has  never  been  denied — it  is  confessedly  admitted 
that  frauds  in  the  public-land  system  exist  everywhere.  There  is  a 
dispute  as  to  the  degree  in  which  these  frauds  are  being  carried  on,  but 
none  as  to  the  fact  that  they  exist.  The  enthusiastic  gentleman  from  Ne¬ 
braska  admits  something  of  the  kind.  The  gentleman  from  Minnesota, 
who  has  gone  back  into  the  matter  of  ancient  history,  admits  that  frauds 
are  numerous  under  the  public-land  system;  and  I  have  no  doubt  it 
will  be  conceded  by  the  gentleman  from  Kansas.  How  then  is  the 
Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office  to  determine  except  by  reports 
which  go  to  him  from  duly  accredited  agents  of  the  Department  what 
he  ought  to  do?  These  are  part  of  the  instructions  given  them  so  far 
as  relates  to  this  matter. 

Circular  of  instructions  to  special  agents. 

Department  of  the  Interior,  General  Land  Office, 

Washington,  D.  C.,  June  23, 1885. 

Sir  :  Having  been  appointed  a  special  agent  of  this  office  for  the  protection 
of  the  public  lands  from  fraudulent  or  illegal  entry  or  appropriation,  you  are 
instructed  that  your  general  duties  will  be  as  follows : 

1.  You  will  carefully,  accurately,  and  thoroughly  investigate  every  case  of 
alleged  fraudulent  or  illegal  entry  or  appropriation  of  public  lands  referred  to 
you  by  this  office,  or  in  any  manner  brought  to  your  attention  in  the  discharge 
of  your  official  duties. 

2.  You  will,  in  all  cases,  personally  examine  the  land  involved,  taking  pains 
in  every  instance  to  accurately  and  positively  identify  the  tract,  and  to  see  and 
take  the  statements  of  claimants,  if  they  can  be  found. 

3.  In  the  examination  of  alleged  fraudulent  homestead  and  pre-emption  claims 
you  will  carefully  note  the  character  and  condition  of  the  land  (when  that  is 
essential  to  your  inquiry),  and  in  all  cases  fully  examine  and  note  the  nature, 
character,  extent,  condition,  and  value  of  all  improvements,  if  any,  thereon, 
and  all  the  facts  pertaining  to  settlement  on,  and  inhabitancy  of,  the  tract,  or 
the  want  thereof. 

4.  You  will  make  and  preserve  full  and  accurate  notes  in  all  'cases  investi¬ 
gated  by  you  upon  every  point  involved  in  th^  case,  to  enable  you — 

First.  To  report  thereon,  conclusively,  to  this  office. 

Second.  To  give  your  evidence,  when  necessary,  before  the  register  and  re¬ 
ceiver,  or  in  proceedings  in  the  courts. 

Third.  To  give  information  or  enter  complaints  in  criminal  actions. 

5.  You  will  also  take  the  affidavits,  when  practicable,  of  parties  giving  you  in¬ 
formation,  and  of  the  witnesses  whose  evidence  may  be  necessary  in  the  case. 
When  parties  are  unwillingto  make  affidavits,  you  will  take  their  names  and  ad¬ 
dresses  and  a  note  of  the  matters  to  which  they  will  testify.  But  the  affidavits 
of  witnesses  should  be  obtained  in  all  cases,  if  possible. 

6.  When  making  investigations  in  an  unsettled  district,  and  in  other  cases 
when  absolutely  necessary,  you  will  be  authorized  to  employ  a  guide,  surveyor, 
or  other  assistant,  or,  in  extreme  cases,  assistants  to  aid  you  in  finding  and  identi¬ 
fying  the  land,  and  in  the  procurement  of  testimony,  or  the  service  of  notices. 
You  will  not,  however,  employ  a  surveyor  without  special  authority  from  this 
office,  unless  in  cases  of  emergency,  when  you  will  at  once  fully  report  the  ne¬ 
cessity  for  the  service  and  the  nature  of  the  emergency. 

7.  The  affidavits  of  your  assistants  to  the  facts  found  upon  the  investigation 
of  any  cases  will  be  taken  by  you  fully  and  in  detail,  and  will  be  transmitted  to 
this  office  with  your  report. 

8.  Where  the  land  is  uninhabited  and  unimproved,  and  in  other  well-estab¬ 
lished  cases,  your  own  report,  and  the  affidavits  of  your  assistants,  when  such 
are  employed,  may  be  sufficient  for  the  purposes  of  cancellation  or  other  action. 
But  you  will  Ipe  careful  to  see  that  all  requisite  evidence  is  obtained  and  pre¬ 
served,  and  that  yourself  and  your  assistants  are  fully  prepared  to  give  testi¬ 
mony  in  the  case  when  required  to  do  so. 

9.  in  all  cases  when  there  are  other  witnesses  whose  testimony  can  be  ob¬ 
tained  you  should  secure  their  affidavits,  as  mentioned  in  paragraph  5. 

10.  As  an  officer  of  this  Department,  detailed  to  investigate  frauds,  you  are 


10 


authorized  by  section  183,  United  States  Revised  Statutes,  to  administer  oaths 
and  take  affidavits  in  any  matter  pertaining  to  your  official  inquiries. 

11.  You  will  bear  in  mind — 

First.  That  where  homestead  affidavits  are  made  before  a  clerk  of  a  court 
and  the  party,  or  some  member  of  his  family,  is  not  actually  residing  on  the 
land  at  the  time,  and  a  bona  fide  improvement  has  not  been  made  thereon,  such 
entries  are  prima  facie  fraudulent. 

Second.  That  where  the  affidavit  is  made  before  the  local  land  officers,  and 
residence  is  not  established  on  the  land  within  six  months  after  date  of  entry, 
the  entry  is  subject  to  forfeiture.  Failure  to  establish  residence  as  required  also 
raises  a  presumption  of  fraud  in  the  entry. 

Third.  That  a  pre-emption  claim  can  be  lawfully  initiated  only  by  actual  set¬ 
tlement  on  the  land,  and  that  the  tiling  of  declaratory  statement  in  the  absence 
of  a  preceding  bona  fide  settlement  is  illegal. 

Fourth.  That  the  tiling  of  a  soldier’s  declaratory  statement,  when  the  soldier 
has  no  intention  to  enter  the  land  and  actually  reside  upon  it,  is  fraudulent,  and 
that  the  procurement  of  powers  of  attorney  to  make  such  filings  with  an  agree¬ 
ment  or  promise  to  sell  the  land  filed  upon  is  a  fraud  both  upon  the  soldier  and 
the  Government.  Filings  by  powers  of  attorney  should  be  thoroughly  inquired 
into. 

Fifth.  That  commuted  homestead  entries  made  without  actual  residence  upon 
and  improvement  and  cultivation  of  the  land  for  the  prescribed  period  are 
fraudulent 

Sixth.  That  pre-emption  and  commuted  homestead  entries  made  in  the  inter¬ 
est  of  speculation  or  monopoly  are  an  extensive  and  dangerous  class  of  frauds 
and  neea  to  be  closely  watched  and  rigorously  investigated. 

Seventh.  That  homestead  and  pre-emption  entries  made  on  timber  lands  for 
the  purpose  of  obtaining  the  timber,  and  not  for  the  purpose  of  actual  inhab¬ 
itancy  and  cultivation,  are  fraudulent.  You  should  discover  the  use  made  of  the 
timber  in  such  cases,  and  the  amount  cut  or  removed,  and  trace  the  connection 
between  the  parties  obtaining  it  and  the  parties  to  the  fraudulent  entries. 

Eighth.  That  homestead  and  pre-emption  entries  made  on  known  mineral 
lands  are  illegal  and  fraudulent.  Fraudulent  agricultural  entries  on  coal  and 
iron  lands  will  be  particularly  investigated. 

Ninth.  That  placer  or  other  mineral  entries  made  on  non-mineral  lands  for 
the  purpose  of  purchasing  agricultural,  timber,  or  other  lands  that  are  not  sub¬ 
ject  to  private  entry,  or  for  the  purpose  of  controlling  the  water,  or  for  other 
speculative  objects,  are  fraudulent. 

Tenth.  That  entries  of  timber  lands  in  California,  Nevada,  Oi-egon,  and  Wash¬ 
ington  Territory,  under  the  act  of  June  3,  1878  (30  Stat.,  89),  are  fraudulent  if 
made  on  land  valuable  for  agriculture,  or  if  made  for  the  benefit  of  others  than 
the  entrymen,  or  otherwise  in  violation  of  the  restrictions  of  the  act. 

Eleventh.  That  desert-land  entries  are  fraudulent  if  made  on  lands  not  desert 
in  character,  or  if  made  for  speculative  purposes,  or  in  the  interest  of  others  than 
the  entryman.or  otherwise  in  violation  of  the  restrictions  of  the  act. 

Twelfth.  That  timber-culture  entries  can  be  made  only  for  the  cultivation  of 
trees,  and  not  for  speculation  or  relinquishment,  and  not  for  the  benefit  of  any 
other  person  than  the  party  making  the  entry.  You  will  particularly  investi¬ 
gate  alleged  fraudulent  timber-culture  entries,  and  will  direct  special  inquiry 
as  to  whether  such  entries  have  been  made  by  the  procurement  of  land  agents 
•or  others. 

Thirteenth.  That  speculative  and  collusive  entries,  aixd  entries  made  by  em¬ 
ployes,  or  in  the  intexest,  or  by  the  procurement  of  others  than  the  entrymant 
under  any  of  the  settlement  or  improvement  laws  of  Congi’ess,  are  fraudulent 

They  are  sworn  to  perform  their  duty;  they  go  into  the  field  under 
these  instructions.  They  show  nothing  whatever  with  reference  to 
the  performance  of  his  duty  that  should  not  be  exacted  from  an  agent 
intrusted  with  the  performance  of  such  duties  as  he  is  called  upon  to 
discharge;  nothing  that  is  secret  about  it;  nothing  that  is  nefarious  or 
underhanded,  but  everything  that  is  open. 

These  agents  report,  and  have  made  the  reports  which  were  read  here 
in  the  hearing  of  the  House  when  the  legislative  bill  was  up  for  dis¬ 
cussion  showing  the  degree  of  the  frauds  and  the  manner  in  which  they 
have  been  committed.  They  show  the  hiring  of  men  by  the  pionth  to 
make  entries  for  their  employers  in  fraud  of  the  law;  how  they  go  on 
and  build  up  little  shanties,  7  by  9,  in  order  to  comply  with  the  provision 
of  the  law  with  regard  to  residence.  In  some  cases  they  were  only  4 
by  6  feet.  It  is  shown  that  they  have  slept  on  the  land  only  six  nights 
in  six  months.  Affidavits  which  I  have  shown  with  reference  to  the 


11 


Tallant  case,  which  has  been  heralded  as  a  specimen  of  the  harsh  treat¬ 
ment  which  settlers  receive,  that  one  house  he  had  was  only  7  by  9, 
put  up  by  a  man  in  his  employment;  and  he  got  320  acres  of  the  pub¬ 
lic  land  for  his  employer  who  was  holding  a  county  office  at  the  county 
seat. 

I  may  as  well  notice  this  Tallant  case  here.  I  read  in  the  Record 
the  following,  used  in  the  Senate,  as  similar  letters  have  been  used 
hert. 


I  have  a  letter  in  my  hand,  which  I  received  this  morning  from  the  clerk  of 
the  district  court  in  Dakota,  a  gentleman  I  do  not  know,  but  I  will  read  his  let¬ 
ter  as  a  sample  of  the  cases  of  which  I  personally  know — cases  in  my  State,  as 
affecting  the  actions  of  special  agents  and  the  general  action  of  the  Department 
on  the  question  of  entries  which  have  already  been  made.  He  writes  me  from 
Lakota,  Dak.  The  printed  heading,  with  the  date  is  as  follows  : 


“[W.  S.  Tallant,  clerk  of  the  district  court,  Nelson  County.] 

“Dakota, Dak.,  June  18,  1886.” 


After  a  little  introductory  paragraph,  which  it  is  not  necessary  to  read,  the 
writer  says : 

“  The  special  agents  of  the  Land  Office  have  been  causing  almost  every  settler 
here  trouble  and  expense,  which  they  can  not  afford,  and  not  doing  the  Govern¬ 
ment  any  good.  Now,  I  speak  from  personal  knowledge  when  I  say  that  I  do 
not  think  that  any  part  of  the  public  domain  has  ever  been  proved  up  with  bet¬ 
ter  intent  and  a  better  compliance  with  the  laws.  Yet  we  are  told  that  ninety- 
nine  out  of  every  hundred  proofs  made  will  be  canceled. 

“  I  can  cite  you  my  own  case  for  one.  I  made  a  homestead  entry  on  June  26, 
1884,  and  moved  on  the  land  June  27, 1884,  and  made  proof  in  October,  1885  ” — 

Procured  evidently  in  that  case  under  what  is  called  the  commutation  clause 
of  the  homestead  law,  which  provides  that  a  person  who  has  made  an  entry 
under  the  homestead  law  may  change  his  entry  to  a  pre-emption  entry  at  any 
time  after  six  months,  and  instead  of  getting  the  land  for  nothing,  as  he  other¬ 
wise  would  at  the  expiration  of  five  years,  by  paying  a  dollar  and  a  quarter  an 
acre  for  it,  getting  a  final-entry  certificate  at  the  time  he  makes  his  payment 
and  his  proofs — 

“  having  when  I  proved  up  40  acres  broken  and  cropped,  and  a  good  house  there¬ 
on.  Since  that  date  I  have  built  a  barn  that  will  cost  me  about  $500,  and  have  had 
the  whole  claim  broken  up  and  gotten  ready  for  crop  next  year.  I  also  have 
another  claim  which  joins  my  homestead  on  the  west,  giving  me  320  acres,  all 
of  which  is  now  broken  up  and  ready  for  crop,  out  of  which  1  have  in  crop  on 
the  land  this  year  about  170  acres,  and  have  buildings  on  the  land  that  altoget  her 
cost  me  nearly  $2,000.  Every  cent  that  I  have  made  for  the  last  three  years  has 
gone  on  the  place,  and  I  have  refused  at  least  half  a  dozen  offers  to  sell  at  good 
figures. 

“  Now  at  this  late  day  comesa  special  agent  and  says  that  he  has  reported  my 
homestead  for  cancellation  for  the  reason  that  I  am  not  now  living  on  the  land. 

“  But  I  am  keeping  men  there  to  work  the  place  for  me,  and  it-is  the  only  land 
that  I  own  in  the  world,  and  I  have  had  to  undergo  great  hardships  to  get  these 
claims,  and  have  acted  in  every  way  in  good  faith  and  intent. 

“Yours,  &c.. 


“\V.  S.  TALLANT.” 


As  I  said,  this  letter  was  used  in  the  Senate  the  other  day  in  perfect 
good  faith,  I  am  sure,  as  an  illustration  of  the  evils  of  the  special-agent 
service. 

I  thought  I  would  look  up  Mr.  Tallant’s  case,  and  this  is  a  sample  of 
the  proofs  as  to  him — only  a  sample: 

Territory  of  Dakota,  County  of  Grand  Forks,  ss : 

I,  Joseph  Hofer,  being  duly  sworn,  depose  and  say:  That  1  made  D.S.  entry 
No.  7995,  dated  March  25, 1884,  for  the  NW.i  Sec.  13,  Tp.  151,  R.  62,  Grand  Forks 
series,  and  commuted  the  same  to  C.  E.  No.  10309,  July  18,  1884;  that  I  reside 
on  and  work  for  the  Elk  Valley  Farming  Company,  H  miles  south  of  Lari- 
more,  and  that  my  post-office  address  is  Larimore,  Grand  Forks  County,  Da¬ 
kota  Territory. 

That  I  am  well  acquainted  with  Walter  S.  Tallant,  of  Lakota,  Nelson  County, 
Dakota  Territory  ;  that  on  or  about  the  20th  of  October,  1882,  said  Tallant  asked 
me  if  1  would  file  on  a  claim  and  prove  it  up  for  him  ;  if  I  would  he  would  give 
me  two  hundred  ($200)  dollars.  That  I  replied  that  I  could  not  do  it  now,  as  I 
had  not  proved  up  on  my  homestead. 


12 


That  I  worked  for  said  Tallant  from  May  24,  1882,  to  March  17,  1884,  continu¬ 
ously  at  $20  per  month ;  that  in  last-named  month  I  made  settlement  with  said 
Tallant  for  all  the  work  I  had  done  for  him  ;  that  he  paid  me  in  cash  in  full  of 
all  demands. 

That  about  the  2d  of  November,  1882,  said  Tallant  instructed  me  to  go  to  Tp. 
151,  R.  62,  with  him  to  assist  in  building  several  shanties,  which  I  did.  That 
during  a  conversation  in  March,  1884,  Walter  S.  Tallant  said  to  me :  “  Say,  Joe, 
in  this  land  matter  we  did  not  make  any  arrangement  ^  you  can  do  as  you  want 
with  the  land.”  That  said  Tallant  told  me  to  board  with  my  brother,  John 
Hofer;  that  he  furnished  my  said  brother  with  provisions  for  both  of  us. 

That  I  mortgaged  my  said  tract  for  $250.  to  whom  I  do  not  know,  but  think  it 
■was  to  Walters.  Tallant;  that  out  of  said  amount  I  received  nothing.  That 
said  Tallant  is  a  notary  public,  and  he  transacted  all  the  business  in  connection 
Avith  my  filing  on  and  proving  up  my  said  tract,  paying  fees  and  for  said  land. 

That  I  gave  a  second  mortgage  for  $650,  to  whom  I  do  not  know;  that  I  did 
not  know  what  this  second  mortgage  was  for,  and  do  not  understand  it  now,  as 
I  did  not  owe  said  Tallant  anything. 

That  I  received  three  hundred  ($300)  dollars  from  said  Tallant  on  condition 
that  I  would  deed  my  said  tract  to  him  (Tallant)  at  the  expiration  of  one  year 
from  making  my  said  final  proof. 

That  I  first  established  my  residence  on  said  tract  April  10,  1883,  and  resided 
continuously  thereon  until  September  15,  1883;  from  last  date  to  March  18,1884, 
I  slept  in  my  brother  John’s  house  on  the  NE.4  Sec.  14,  151 — 62  :  that  I  boarded 
with  my  said  brother  all  the  time  that  I  resided  on  my  said  tract;  that  since 
March  18,  1884,  I  have  visited  my  said  tract  only  four  times,  to  wit:  April  17, 
May  8,  June  17,  18,  and  19,  and  July  3  and  4,  1884  ;  a  total  of  seven  days. 

That  in  April,  1883,  Walter  S.  Tallant  said  to  me  that  if  my  brother  (John 
Hofer)  would  file  on  a  claim  for  him  (Tallant)  he  Avould  give  him  (my  said 
brother)  $300 ;  that  I  soon  afterward  told  my  brother  what  said  Tallant  had  of¬ 
fered  ;  that  my  brother  said  if  it  was  all  right  he  would  do  so ;  that  he  did  so 
file  on  the  E.2  NE.4,  NW.4  of  NE.4,  and  NE.4  of  SE.4,  Sec.  14,  Tp.  151  N.,  R.  62  W. 

JOSEPH  HOFER. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me  this  31st  day  of  January,  A.  D.  1885. 

TRAVIS  RHODES, 
Special  Agent,  General  Land  Office. 

Witness  : 

John  Hofer. 

Territory  of  Dakota,  County  of  Grand  Forks,  ss  : 

I,  John  Hofer,  being  duly  sworn,  depose  and  say:  That  I  reside  on  the  NW.4 
Sec.  13,  Tp.  150,  R.  56,  and  that  my  post-office  address  is  Larimore,  Dak.;  that  I 
made  D.  S.  No.  7993,  dated  March  25.1884,  for  the  E.2NE.4,  NW.4  of  NE.4,  and 
NE.4  of  SE.4,  See.  14,  Tp.  151,  R.  62,  and  commuted  the  same  to  C.  E.  No.  10442, 
August  7,  1884. 

That  I  am  well  acquainted  with  Walter  S.  Tallant,  of  Lakota,  Nelson  County, 
Dakota  Territory ;  that  I  understood,  through  my  brother,  Joseph  Hofer,  as  I 
could  not  at  that  time  understand  English,  that  I  was  to  file  on  my  said  tract, 
prove  it  up,  and  after  making  said  proof  that  I  was  to  deed  the  same  to  Walter 
S.  Tallant. 

That  said  Tallant  paid  all  expenses  in  connection  with  my  filing  on  and  prov¬ 
ing  up  said  tract;  he  also  paid  for  and  kept  me  supplied  with  provisions  until  I 
made  my  filing  on  said  tract  on  the  25th  of  March,  1884;  that  I  boarded  my 
brother,  Joseph  Hofer,  from  the  16th  of  May,  1883,  until  March  18, 1884. 

That  I  mortgaged  my  said  tract  to  some  one  unknown  to  me  for  an  amount 
unknown  to  me;  that  Walter  S.  Tallant,  as  a  notary  public,  transacted  all  busi¬ 
ness  in  connection  with  my  filing  on  and  proving  up  my  said  tract;  that  after 
mortgaging  said  tract  I  received  $300  from  said  Tallant. 

That  I  first  established  my  residence  on  said  tract  May  16,  1883;  that  I  am 
married, and  my  family  consists  of  wife  and  two  children;  that  I  resided  on 
said  tract  from  May  16, 1883,  to  March  18, 1884,  continuously ;  that  I  have  not  re¬ 
sided  on  said  tract  since  last-named  date. 

That  my  improvements  consist  of  house,  7  by  14,7  feet  high,  built  of  common 
lumber,  shed  roof,  tar  papered ;  value,  $25 ;  40  acres  breaking  and  backsetting  at 
$5  per  acre,  $200;  total  value  of  improvements,  $225. 

That  Walter  S.  Tallant  paid  for  all  of  said  improvements. 

That  a  crop  of  oats  was  raised  on  said  tract  (40  acres)  by  said  Tallant,  who 
harvested  and  appropriated  to  his  own  use  the  proceeds  thereof. 

JOHN  HOFER. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me  this  31st  day  of  January,  A.  D.  1885, 

TRAVIS  RHODES, 
Special  Agent,  General  Land  Office. 


Witness : 

Joseph  Hofer. 


13 


Territory  of  Dakota,  County  of  Ramsey,  ss  : 

I,  George  W.  Pierce,  being  duly  sworn,  depose  and  say:  That  I  am  the  iden* 
tical  George  W.  Pierce  who  made  D  S.  entry  No.  7992,  dated  March  25,  1884,  for 
the  SE.4  Sec.  24,  Tp.  151,  R.  62,  and  commuted  the  same  to  C.  E.  No.  11239  January 
3, 1885 ;  that  I  reside  on  said  tract,  and  that  my  post-office  address  is  Jerusalem, 
Dak. 

That  I  am  well  acquainted  with  Walter  S.  Tallant,  of  Lakota,  Nelson  County, 
Dakota  Territory;  that  some  time  in  March,  1883,  I  was  in  Walter  S.  Tal- 
lant’s  office,  in  Larimore,  Dak.,  when  he  wanted  to  know  of  me  how  much  I 
would  charge  him  to  break  and  backset  one  hundred  acres  of  land  in  Tp.  151, 
R.  62;  that  I  told  him  I  would  charge  $500;  that  he  then  wished  to  hire  me  to 
come  out  here  (151-62)  and  hold  a  claim  for  him  (Tallant) ;  he  said  he  would 
give  me  $300  to  hold  one  for  him  for  six  months;  that  I  informed  him  that  I 
would  not  do  it,  as  I  wanted  my  said  claim  for  myself ;  that  on  my  next  trip 
home  to  said  tract  I  lost  one  of  my  horses  by  death;  that  I  returned  to  Lari- 
more.and  informed  Tallant  of  said  loss,  when  he  said  that  if  I  would  hold  said 
tract  for  him  he  would  procure  me  another  horse,  and  also  agreed  to  pay  all 
expenses  in  connection  with  holding  and  proving  up  my  said  tract,  including 
provisions ;  that  said  Tallant  did  not  carry  out  his  part  of  said  agreement,  in 
that  he  did  not  furnish  me  anything  whatever;  but,  on  the  contrary,  said  Tal¬ 
lant  is  still  in  my  debt ;  that  I  paid  all  expenses  in  connection  with  my  said 
tract. 

That  in  July,  1883,  I  learned  that  I  would  be  likely  to  get  myself  into  trouble 
if  I  carried  out  said  agreement,  and  from  that  time  have  ever  since  repudiated, 
and  still  repudiate,  my  contract  or  agreement  to  that  effect.  - 

That  after  proving  up  I  mortgaged  said  tract  to  the  Merchants’  Bank,  of 
Grand  Forks,  Dak.,  for  8250.  That  I  paid  cash  for  my  said  land. 

That  in  the  aggregate  my  improvements  are  worth  $174.  That  as  yet  I  have 
raised  no  crop  on  said  tract. 

That  I  am  married,  my  family  consisting  of  my  wife  and  self. 

GEORGE  W.  PIERCE. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me  this  26th  day  of  January,  A.  D.  1885. 

TRAVIS  RHODES, 
Special  Agent  General  Land  Office. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  here,  also,  Mr.  Tallant’s  own  affidavit,  a  lengthy 
paper,  too  long  to  print,  as  I  think,  but  which  I  shall  be  glad  to  hand 
any  one  desiring  to  see  it,  in  which  he  makes  a  showing,  over  his  own 
signature,  of  his  speculative  entries — his  employes  making  claims,  he 
furnishing  shanties  7  by  9  feet  as  residences — “  taking  parties  out  to 
locate”  on  their  promise  to  sell  to  him,  or  mortgage,  when  they  got 
title,  &c. ,  one  of  the  parties  being  a  Scandinavian  girl,  from  the  name, 
a  domestic  servant  then  and  siuce,  continuously,  for  whom  he  found  a 
claim. 

This  is  the  party  whose  case,  on  this  record,  is  held  up  as  a  specimen 
of  the  hardship  of  the  order  of  April  3,  1885,  simply  because  the  Com¬ 
missioner  desired  to  examine  the  matter  ! 

Now,  with  these  things  before  him,  what  is  the  duty  of  the  Commis¬ 
sioner  of  the  Land  Office?  But  before  I  come  to  that  I  have  one  remark 
to  make.  It  is  said,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  when  the  Commissioner  of  the 
General  Land  Office  made  his  report  here  he  had  selected  from  the  offi¬ 
cial  reports  which  came  to  him  those  which  were  sent  to  him  by  his 
own  satellites — I  think  the  elegant  and  euphonious  term  of  “sap- 
suckers”  was  used  by  the  gentleman  from  Nebraska  in  reference  to 
agents  of  the  Government  “who  were  sent  out  by  Mr.  Sparks  to  ride  in 
palace  cars  and  drink  whisky  at  the  public  expense.”  These  men,  he 
said,  had  sent  in  their  reports,  and  the  most  outrageous  and  exaggerated 
ones  had  been  selected  by  Mr.  Sparks  to  be  embodied  in  his  official  re¬ 
port. 

Now,  let  me  be  understood  here  in  what  I  say.  Every  report  which 
is  embodied  or  cited  in  the  report  of  the  Commissioner  of  the  General 
Land  Office  to  this  House  as  illustrative  of  the  evils  against  the  public 
land  system  was  made  by  a  Republican  appointed  by  Senator  Teller 
when  he  was  Secretary  of  the  Interior — every  one  of  them  !  Not  one 


14 


of  them  had  known  Mr.  Sparks  officially  when  he  reported.  I  repeat 
there  is  no  partisan  party  question  with  reference  to  it.  Sir,  I  hope, 
earnestly,  the  time  may  never  come  in  my  political  experience — and  I 
profess  to  be  as  good  a  .Republican  as  any  one  sitting  within  the  sound 
of  my  voice — I  hope  the  time  may  never  come  in  my  experience  in 
public  life,  and  it  never  will,  when  I  will  fail  to  render  justice  to  one 
of  the  opposite  party  when  he  is  striving  to  do  what  he  believes  to  be 
his  duty  as  I  believe  General  Sparks  is  trying  to-day  to  do.  I  am  in 
favor  of  doing  justice  to  any  man  who  is  in  his  position.  What  is  he? 
The  gentleman  from  Minnesota  says  he  is  an  honest  man.  Who  ever 
denied  it?  Who  has  ever  questioned  the  personal  integrity  of  William 
A.  J.  Sparks?  It  is  said  he  is  an  enthusiast.  I  agree  to  that;  but  his 
enthusiasm  with  reference  to  this  question  is  in  favor  of  the  poor  man 
of  American  citizenship  who  desires  to  receive  from  his  country  a  home 
at  the  hands  of  the  Government  free  of  cost  to  himself  and  his  family, 
as  against  speculators  and  land-grabbers.  [Applause.  ] 

When  the  gentleman  from  Minnesota  asks  me  to  go  back  to  the 
realms  of  ancient  history  and  examine  what  took  place  in  the  times  of 
the  Tudors,  I  say  for  myself  as  a  member  of  the  House  of  Representa¬ 
tives,  and  in  view  of  what  I  know  relative  to  the  public  land  system, 

I  prefer  to  deal  with  present  experience  rather  than  ancient  history. 
What  has  General  Sparks  done?  What  is  this  order  of  his  about  which 
so  much  declamation  is  made  here  and  which  it  is  alleged  is  going  to 
ruin  the  nation  if  it  is  carried  into  execution  ? 

How  many  gentlemen  within  the  sound  of  my  voice  have  read  it  ?  How 
many  of  the  men  who  have  discussed  this  order  and  criticised  General 
Sparks  can  state  what  it  is?  Notone.  I  assert  that  these  gentlemen 
can  not  repeat  that  order  which  they  denounce.  Now,  I  hold  it  in  my 
hand.  It  is  too  long  to  read,  but  the  substance  of  it  is,  and  is  only, 
that,  in  certain  specified  portions  of  this  country,  there  shall  be,  for 
the  present,  a  suspension  of  final  action  with  reference  to  land  patents. 
Whom, does  it  harm  ?  No  vested  light  is  taken  from  anybody.  The 
gentleman  from  Minnesota  [Mr.  Nelson]  used  what  I  think  is  a  very 
happy  expression  with  reference  to  it.  He  said,  gentlemen  will  re¬ 
member,  that  Commissioner  Sparks  had  placed  this  section  of  country 
in  a  kind  of  quarantine.  I  thank  the  gentleman  for  the  word.  It  is 
a  quarantine.  When  the  small-pox  appears  in  a  neighborhood  it  is 
quarantined.  Why?  In  order  to  protect  healthy  people  outside  and 
those  who  are  free  from  disease  within;  and  that  is  precisely  what  was 
done  by  Commissioner  Sparks — that,  and  nothing  else.  It  came  to  the 
knowledge  of  the  executive  officers  of  the  Government  that  these  frauds 
were  being  carried  on  in  localities,  and  carried  on  to  an  extent  which 
no  man  in  this  House  would  believe  if  told  to  him  as  a  narrative;  and 
he  placed  these  localities  in  quarantine — that  is  it  exactly — until  the 
moral  leprosy  could  be  ascertained. 

Who  would  believe,  unless  his  attention  was  officially' called  to  it, 
that  corporations,  syndicates,  some  of  them  foreign,  without  a  dollar  of 
domestic  capital  invested,  had  at  one  time  30,000,000  acres  of  the  public 
lands  fenced  with  barb-wire  fences  shutting  out  American  citizens  who 
were  seeking  homesteads,  and  that  the  arm  of  the  nation  was  substanti¬ 
ally  paralyzed  so  far  as  any  remedy  was  concerned  ?  Who  would  believe 
it?  And  yet  that  is  the  fact.  1  hold  in  my  hand  a  report  from  the 
Committee  on  Public  Lands,  which  was  the  basis  of  the  law  which  I 
had  the  honor  to  introduce,  and  which  was  passed  and  became  a  law, 
prohibiting  these  unlawful  inclosures  and  providing  a  summaty  method 
for  their  destruction. 


i 


15 


The  facts  are  worth  reproducing,  that  the  magnitude  of  the  evils  these- 
officials  were  called  on  to  deal  with  may  be  appreciated,  and  we  will 
not  wonder  that  stones  were  cast  at  the  offenders  instead  of  grass. 

This  was  from  Secretary  Teller: 


The  following  localities,  in  addition  to  the  counties  above  mentioned  in  the 
State  of  Nebraska,  are  referred  to,  namely  : 

Kingman.  Pratt,  Barbour,  Butler,  Harper,  Comanche,  and  Lane  Counties,  Kan¬ 
sas:  Billings  County,  Dakota;  Cassia  and  Oneida  Counties,  Idaho;  Carbon, 
Laramie,  and  Sweetwater  Counties,  Wyoming;  Humboldt,  Mendocino,  and 
Plumas  Counties,  California:  Madison,  Meagher,  Gallatin,  and  Yellowstone 
Counties.  Montana ;  Sevier  County,  Utah ;  Colfax  and  Mora  Counties,  New 
Mexico ;  and  Bent,  Las  Animas,  Pueblo,  Fremont,  Park,  El  Paso,  Weld,  and 
La  Plata  Counties,  Colorado. 

Among  the  cases  specially  reported,  additional  to  the  Brighton  Ranch,  in  Ne¬ 
braska.  are  those  of  the  Arkansas  Valley  Cattle  Company,  in  Colorado,  whose 
inclosures  embrace  upward  of  1,000,000  acres;  the  Prairie  Cattle  Company 
(Scotch),  in  Colorado,  upward  of  1,000,000  acres  ;  H.  H.  Metcalf.  River  Bend,  Col¬ 
orado,  200,000  acres:  John  W.  Prowers,  Colorado,  200,000  acres;  McDaniel  Si. 
Davis,  Colorado.  75,000  acres ;  Routcheler  Sc  Lamb,  Colorado,  40,000  acres ;  J.  W. 
Frank,  Colorado,  40, 000  acres;  Garnett  Si  Langford,  Colorado.  30.000  acres  ;  E.  C. 
Tane,  Colorado,  50,000  acres ;  Lievesv  Brothers,  Colorado,  150, 000  acres  ;  Vroo- 
man  Si  McFife,  Colorado,  50,000  acres  :  Beatty  Brothers,  Colorado,  40,000  acres  ; 
Chick.  Brown  Si  Co.,  Colorado,  30,000  acres:  Reynolds  Cattle  Company,  Colo¬ 
rado,  50,000  acres ;  several  other  cases  in  Colorado  embracing  from  10,000  acres 
to  30,000  acres ;  Coe  &  Carter.  Nebraska,  50  miles  of  fence;  J.  W.  Wilson,  Ne¬ 
braska,  40  miles  of  fence;  J.  W.  Bosler.  20  miles;  William  Humphrey,  Nevada, 
30  miles;  Nelson  Si  Son.  Nevada,  22  miles  ;  Kennebeek  Ranch.  Nebraska,  from 
20.000  to  50.000  acres.  In  Kansas  entire  counties  are  reported  as  fenced.  In  Wy¬ 
oming  125  large  cattle  companies  are  reported  having  fencing  on  the  public 
lands.  Among  the  companies  and  persons  reported  as  having  “immense  ”  or 
“  very  large  ”  areas  inclosed,  but  specific  quantities  not  mentioned,  are  the  Du¬ 
buque,  Cimmaron,  and  Renello  Cattle  Companies,  of  New  Mexico;  the  Carlisle 
Cattle  Company  (English),  in  Colorado ;  the  Marquis  de  Morales,  in  Dakota ; 
the  Wyoming  Cattle  Company  (Scotch),  in  Wyoming ;  the  Rankin  Live  Stock 
Company,  in  Nebraska.  Several  companies  and  persons  in  Montana  and  else¬ 
where  are  mentioned  as  having  inclosures  with  no  data  as  to  areas.  A  large 
number  of  cases  in  the  several  States  and  Territories  west  of  the  one  hundredth 
meridian  are  reported  where  the  inclosures  range  from  1,000  to  25,000  acres  and 
upward. 

The  cases  above  referred  to  are  to  be  regarded  merely  as  indicative  of  the  sit¬ 
uation. 


Department  of  the  Interior,  Washington,  March  3,  1884. 

Dear  Sir  :  Referring  to  our  conversation  on  the  subject  of  foreign  companies 
controlling  inclosures  of  the  public  lands,  I  send  you  the  inclosed  memorandum, 
which  I  think  contains  the  facts  you  wanted.  The  land  described,  with  the  ex¬ 
ception  of  perhaps  a  few  thousand  acres,  is  all  Government  land. 

Very  respectfully  yours, 

H.  M.  TELLER,  Secretary. 


Hon.  L.  E.  Payson,  House  of  Representatives. 


The  Arkansas  Cattle  Company  have  fenced  in  the  following-described  publio 
land  in  the  States  of  Colorado  and  Kansas,  namely  : 

Beginning  on  the  north  bank  of  the  Arkansas  River,  on  the  line  between 
Secs.  19  and  20,  in  T.  23 S.,  R.  41  W.,  and  running  a  northerly  direction  to  Sec.  20, 
inT.  15 S.,  R.  41 W.;  thence  a  northwesterly  direction  to  Sec.  20,  in  T.  15S.,R. 
44  W.;  thence  a  southwesterly  direction  to  southeast  corner  of  Sec.  36, in  T.  15- 

S. ,  R.  48  W.;  thence  a  southerly  direction  to  the  northeast  corner  of  T.  19  S.,R. 
48  W.,  and  thence  a  southeasterly  direction  to  the  bank  of  the  river  in  Sec.  26, 

T.  22  S.,  R.  46  W.  of  the  sixth  principal  meridian.  Also  all  that  other  tractor 
parcel  of  land  being  on  the  south  side  of  the  Arkansas  Ri%'er,  in  Bent  County, 
Colorado,  and  bounded  as  follows,  namely:  Beginning  on  the  south  bank  of  the 
Arkansas  River  on  the  east  line  of  T.  23  S.,  R.  42  W.,  and  running  south  on  said 
township  line  to  the  south  line  of  said  township  ;  thence  west  along  the  south 
line  of  said  township  to  the  middle  of  Sec.  33  in  said  township,  and  thence  north 
to  the  Arkansas  River  on  the  north  line  of  Sec.  21,  in  said  township. 

There  appears  to  be  about  forty  townships,  or  921,600  acres  embraced  in  the 
inclosure. 

On  March  24,  1884,  Secretary  Teller  sent  to  the  House  a  supplemental 
report  relative  to  unlawful  fencing  of  public  lands  in  the  State  of  Ne- 


16 


braska.  The  report  is  a  special  one,  made  by  United  States  Deputy 
Surveyor  G.  W.  Fairchild.  Mr.  Fairchild  says: 

The  whole  country  embraced  in  my  contract  (Northwestern  Nebraska)  is  oc* 
cupied  and  run  by  capitalists  engaged  in  cattle-raising,  who  have  hundreds  of 
miles  of  wire  fence  constructed  to  inclose  all  desirable  land,  including  water 
courses,  to  form  barriers  for  their  cattle  and  to  prevent  settlers  from  occupying 
the  land.  They  also  represent  that  they  have  desert  and  timber  claims  upon 
the  lands  they  have  inclosed.  Upon  their  fences  they  have  posted  at  intervals 

notices  as  follows :  “  The - who  opens  this  fence  had  better  look  out  for  his 

scalp.”  The  fences  are  built  often  so  as  to  inclose  several  sections  in  one  stock 
ranch,  and  the  ranches  are  joined  together  from  the  mountains  clear  round  to 
the  mountains  again.  Persons  going  there  intending  to  settle  are  also  informed 
that  if  they  settle  on  the  land  the  ranchmen  will  freeze  them  out;  that  they  will 
not  employ  a  man  who  settles  on  or  claims  land,  and  that  he  can  not  get  em¬ 
ployment  from  any  cattle-men  in  the  whole  country. 

Sir,  some  of  the  gentlemen  who  are  now  opposing  the  action  of  the 
Interior  Department  are  the  same  gentlemen  who  upon  this  floor  did 
everything  they  could  to  prevent  the  consideration  of  that  bill. 

Mr.  PERKINS.  Did  the  syndicates  of  which  the  gentleman  speaks 
■claim  the  land  which  they  had  fenced  under  any  existing  law? 

Mr.  PAYSON.  They  did  not.  They  simply  went  on  and  fenced  it. 

Mr.  PERKINS.  Then  of  course  their  action  was  unlawful. 

Mr.  PETERS.  And  their  fences  were  thrown  down  and  the  lands 
were  opened  to  settlement. 

Mr.  PAYSON.  Yes;  hut  not  until  after  that  bill  became  a  law,  and 
they  were  threatened  with  indictment  by  the  district  attorney  of  the 
western  district  of  Kansas. 

Mr.  LAIRD.  I  wish  the  gentleman  would  name  one  man  on  this 
floor  who  defended  that  land-grab. 

Mr.  PAYSON.  I  do  not  say  that  gentlemen  defended,  but  they  threw 
obstructions  in  the  way  of  the  consideration  of  the  bill  which  was  de¬ 
signed  to  put  au  end  to  it.  I  could  name  some  gentlemen,  whose  voices 
will  be  heard  here  to-day,  who  objected  time  after  time  when  unani¬ 
mous  consent  was  asked  to  take  up  that  bill. 

Mr.  PERKINS.  The  bill  to  remove  trespassers  on  the  public  lands? 

Mr.  PAYSON.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  PERKINS.  I  would  be  glad  to  have  the  gentleman  name  one 
■of  them.  I  know  that  the  gentleman  from  Nebraska  and  the  gentle¬ 
men  of  my  delegation  did  all  they  could  to  favor  the  jiassage  of  that 
bill. 

Mr.  PAYSON.  The  members  of  the  gentleman’s  delegation  did  not 
flo  so. 

Mr.  BUTTER  WORTH.  Do  I  understand  the  gentleman  from  Illi¬ 
nois  [Mr.  Paysox]  to  say  that  there  was  no  practical  way  of  stopping 
these  frauds  of  which  he  speaks  without  issuing  the  order  which  the 
Commissioner  did  issue? 

Mr.  PAYSON.  No,  sir;  I  did  not  say  that. 

Mr.  RYAN.  Will  the  gentleman  from  Illinois  name  any  member 
who  opposed  the  consideration  of  the  bill  of  which  he  has  been  speak¬ 
ing? 

Mr.  PAYSON.  Well,  the  gentleman  who  will  follow  me  to  day  is 
one  [Mr.  Peters]. 

Mr.  PERKINS.  He  can  speak  for  himself. 

Mr.  RYAN.  I  only  want  to  say  that  I  was  heartily  in  favor  of  that 
bill. 

Mr.  PERKINS.  So  was  every  member  of  our  delegation. 

Mr.  PAYSON.  Not  by  action. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  1  have  stated  the  condition  of  things  when  Com- 


17 


mission er  Sparks  came  into  office.  Proclamations  had  been  issued  on 
the  subject,  but  nothing  was  done.  For  four  years  there  were  reports 
from  the  Committee  on  Public  Lands  of  this  House  showing  that  these 
frauds  were  being  committed,  and  that  whole  townships  of  agricultural 
lands  were  being  taken  up  by  public  speculators.  What  was  to  be  done  ? 
I  was  consulted  with,  with  other  members  of  the  Committee  on  Public 
Lands,  and  it  was  thought  best  then  to  serve  notice  on  the  whole  thiev¬ 
ing  crowd  that  a  halt  would  be  called,  to  say  to  them  “You  can  go  on 
in  this  way,  making  your  entries  by  your  hired  men,  building  your 
houses  7  by  9,  and  moving  them  on  wheels  from  one  tract  of  land  to 
.  another,  you  can  go  on  with  these  performances  to  your  heart’s  content, 
but  those  lands  will  never  be  patented  in  this  Land  Office.  [Ap¬ 
plause.  ] 

As  I  have  said,  I  was  consulted  as  to  the  propriety  of  issuing  the  or¬ 
der  which  was  issued  by  the  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office, 
and  I  gave  it  my  hearty  concurrence,  and  all  I  regret  is  that,  owing  to 
the  pressure  brought  to  bear  by  men  who  were  steeped  to  the  lips  in 
these  transactions,  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  was  induced  to  rescind 
that  order  instead  of  keeping  it  in  force  and  insisting  upon  its  execu¬ 
tion. 

Mr.  LAIRD.  Will  the  gentleman  yield  for  a  question? 

Mr.  PAYSON.  No,  sir;  I  donotcaretoyieldforaquestion.  When  I 
am  through  I  will  be  glad  to  answer  any  question  that  may  be  asked  me. 

Mr.  EZRA  B.  TAYLOR.  I  would  like  to  ask  the  gentleman  a  ques¬ 
tion. 

Mr.  PAYSON.  I  am  not  willing  to  have  my  time  consumed  with 
questions  which  may  only  anticipate  what  I  am  going  to  say.  When 
I  am  through  I  shall  be  pleased  to  answer  any  question  that  may  be 
asked. 

Mr.  EZRA  B.  TAYLOR.  Mine  is  a  very  simple  question.  It  is 
this:  Even  if  these  great  abuses  did  exist  by  what  right  does  an  exec¬ 
utive  officer  of  the  Government  suspend  the  laws  of  the  land  ? 

Mr.  PAYSON.  I  will  be  glad  to  answer  that  before  I  get  through. 
I  am  coming  to  that  point. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  it  was  stated  when  the  legislative  bill  was  under 
discussion  that  all  this  array  of  facts  and  figures  had  no  other  basis 
than  the  reports  of  these  special  agents  that  no  action  had  been  taken 
ip  the  Interior  Department  going  to  show  that  these  charges  were  well 
founded,  and  one  gentleman  went  so  far  as  to  say  that  if  the  facts  were 
known  the  official  conclusions  of  the  officers  of  the  Interior  Department 
would  show  that  there  was  no  basis  for  the  charges.  I  hold  in  my  hand 
a  letter  written  to  me  in  response  to  inquiry  which  I  addressed  to  the 
Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office  at  that  time,  and  I  shall  ask 
to  have  it  inserted  in  the  Record  here. 

Department  of  the  Interior,  General,  Land  Office, 

Washington,  D.  C.,  June  19,  1886. 

Dear  Sir  :  In  reply  to  your  letter  of  the  16th  instant  I  have  to  state  that  the 
records  of  this  office  will  contradict  any  assertion  that  may  be  made  to  the  ef¬ 
fect  that  alleged  frauds  on  the  public  domain  rest  wholly  upon  the  unsupported 
reports  of  special  agents,  and  show  that  such  a  statement  is  wholly  without 
foundation. 

Special  agents  are  required  (see  paragraphs  5, 7,  and  9  of  9ircular  of  June  23, 
1885,  copy  inclosed),  to  obtain  and  transmit  with  their  reports  the  affidavits  of 
parties  cognizant  of  the  facts,  and  this  is  habitually  done.  It  frequently  hap¬ 
pens  that  parties  cognizant  of  facts  are  afraid  to  volunteer  testimony,  and  in 
some  classes  of  cases  there  are  no  inhabitants  on  or  near  the  land.  But  even 
with  these  drawbacks  other  testimony  than  that  derived  from  the  personal  ex- 

PAY - 2 


18 


amination  of  agents  is  sent  up  with  their  reports  in  fully  three-fourths  of  the 
whole  number  of  eases  examined  and  reported.  Special  agents  are  also  in¬ 
structed  to  take  pains  in  every  instance  to  see  and  obtain  the  statements  of  claim¬ 
ants  if  they  can  be  found.  (See  paragraph  2  of  inclosed  circular.) 

In  many  cases  the  agent  furnishes  the  affidavits  of  the  claimants  themselves, 
in  which  they  swear  to  their  own  and  their  associates’  illegal  and  fraudulent 
acts.  One  agent  alone  within  the  last  four  or  five  months  has  transmitted  to 
this  office  the  affidavits  of  entrymen  in  eighty-three  cases,  in  which  they  admit 
that  they  never  saw  the  lands,  and  that  they  were  hired  by  the  agents  of  the 
speculators  to  make  the  entries. 

In  other  cases  the  affidavits  of  the  agents  of  the  speculators  are  submitted 
with  the  reports,  and  there  is  hardly  a  case  reported  without  giving  the  names 
of  witnesses  and  a  brief  statement  of  what  they  will  swear  to  in  regard  to  the 
alleged  fraud. 

The  evidence  furnished  by  the  agents  or  filed  by  individuals  informing  this 
office  of  frauds  is  generally  of  the  best  character  and  is  often  substantiated  or  in 
a  measure  supported  by  the  records. 

The  claimants,  however,  are  not  deprived  of  the  lands  by  this  evidence  with¬ 
out  the  privilege  of  a  trial.  On  the  report  of  an  agent  showing  the  fraud,  the 
entry  is  held  for  cancellation,  the  party  in  interest  being  allowed  sixty  days 
after  due  notice  within  which  to  apply  for  a  hearing.  In  the  notice  he  is  fully 
informed  of  the  substance  of  the  special  agent’s  report  and  of  the  allegations 
against  the  entry  and  given  full  opportunity  to  controvert  the  charges  and  show 
the  validity  of  the  entry. 

The  records  of  this  office  show  that  many  of  these  claimants,  after  being  ad¬ 
vised  of  the  facts  alleged  against  them,  decline  to  make  a  defense. 

Since  August  1,1885,  five  hundred  and  thirteen  entries  have  been  canceled 
upon  reports  of  special  agents  showing  fraud,  after  claimants  were  duly  notified 
that  they  would  be  given  the  privilege  of  defending  their  entries  and  had  de¬ 
clined  to  do  so. 

These  are  of  the  most  flagrant  and  indefensible  character  of  cases,  and  the  de¬ 
fault  was  made  simply  because  the  parties  did  not,  in  the  face  of  the  facts  discov¬ 
ered,  care  to  run  the  risk  of  being  prosecuted  for  the  perjury  they  would  have 
to  commit  in  order  to  sustain  the  entries.  The  peril  of  such  a  course  was  too 
great  and  the  prospect  of  success  too  doubtful  to  be  undertaken  even  by  the 
boldest  and  most  desperate  violators  of  the  law. 

The  number  of  cases  reported  by  special  agents  from  April  1,  1885,  to  March 
31,1886.  is  2,606. 

Cases  examined  in  the  General  Land  Office  from  April  1,  1885,  to  March  31, 
1886,  2,591. 

Indorsed  no  fraud  or  held  for  further  examination,  368. 


Action  taken  : 

Conclusively  (a)  or  prima  facia  ( b )  fraudulent. 

Canceled  (a) .  1,044 

Held  for  cancellation  or  hearings  ordered  (6),  &c .  1,179 


Total .  2, 223 


It  will  be  seen  that  out  of  the  2,591  cases  reported  and  examined  2,223  have 
been  shown  to  be  fraudulent.  Of  the  368  suspended  cases  a  large  proportion 
have  also  been  shown  to  be  of  such  character  as  to  require  further  investiga,- 
tion. 

The  foregoing  does  not  include  many  hundreds  of  cases  where  entries  have 
been  canceled  for  fraud  developed  in  contest  proceedings  between  private  in¬ 
dividuals. 

Hearings  have  been  ordered  in  a  considerable  number  of  cases  reported  by 
the  agents  as  fraudulent  and  the  result  of  five  hundred  and  fifteen  of  the  hear¬ 
ings  have  been  received  since  July  1,  1885. 

Two  hundred  and  seventy-four  of  these  cases  have  been  examined  and  passed 
upon,  and  the  testimony  taken  in  two  hundred  and  sixty  out  of  the  two  hun¬ 
dred  and  seventy-four  confirms  the  correctness  of  the  reports  of  the  agents,  and 
the  entries  were  held  for  cancellation  on  the  evidence  adduced  at  the  hearings. 

A  cursory  examination  of  the  remaining  two  hundred  and  forty-one  cases 
shows  that  the  percentage  of  cases  in  which  the  testimony  taken  at  the  trials 
sustains  the  agents’  reports  is  fully  as  great  as  in  the  cases  acted  upon.  It  will 
thus  be  seen  that  the  special  agents’  reports  are  generally  sustained  at  a  formal 
hearing  in  cases  in  which  hearings  have  been  had  and  acted  upon  during  the 
period  specified,  and  that  these  are  the  only  cases  in  which  the  parties  desired 
or  were  willing  to  attempt  a  defense  of  the  entries. 

In  other  cases  they  admit  by  their  action  that  the  reports  were  true  ;  so  that 
I  can  safely  say  that  the  reports  alleging  fraud  in  nineteen  cases  out  of  twenty 
are  correct  beyond  question,  and  it  is  not  to  be  assumed  that  the  reports  in  the 
remaining  twentieth  are  incorrect,  but  simply  that  the  agents  failed,  through 


19 


inability  to  secure  attendance  of  witnesses  or  otherwise,  to  make  out  the  case  o 
the  Government. 

The  parties  who  actually  defend  entries  reported  as  fraudulent  are  quite  uni¬ 
formly  purported  assignees — frequently  persons  who  procured  the  entries  to  be 
made — and  every  expedient  known  to  violators  of  law  is  resorted  to  in  order  to 
defeat  the  Government  at  these  hearings.  Witnesses  are  often  tampered  with 
or  intimidated.  In  the  Estes  Park  cases  in  Colorado,  where  a  large  quantity  of 
public  land  was  fraudulently  entered  by  the  procurement  of  agents  of  the  Earl 
of  Dunraven,not  a  witness  could  be  produced  at  day  of  hearing,  although  the 
testimony  previously  obtained  by  affidavits  of  numerous  citizens  was  over¬ 
whelming  in  character.  In  Nebraska  witnesses  have  been  warned  by  “  regula¬ 
tors,”  and  in  California  not  long  since  an  important  witness  for  the  Govern¬ 
ment  was  murdered  by  employes  of  parties  being  proceeded  against. 

Every  impediment  is  thrown  in  the  way  of  the  Government  in  attempting  to 
discover  and  suppress  frauds  upon  public  lands,  and  obviously  perjured  testi¬ 
mony  in  favor  of  claims  has  constantly  to  be  met  with.  Parties  possessing  great 
wealth  and  influence  are  engaged  in  these  frauds,  and  all  the  inducements  by 
which  special  agents  are  surrounded  adverse  to,  rather  than  in  favor  of,  a  vig¬ 
orous  dischai’ge  of  their  duties.  Only  men  of  high  character  and  strong  integrity 
can  be  employed  in  such  service  with  any  safety  to  the  Government.  The  liability 
to  which  agents  are  subject  is  that  of  unduly  favoring  claimants,  not  that  of  im¬ 
properly  reporting  against  them.  An  agent  may  have  much  to  lose  by  being 
faithful  to  the  interests  of  the  Government,  since,  if  so  faithful,  he  is  liable  to  be 
attacked  from  very  high  and  influential  quarters.  If  he  chooses  to  be  dishonest 
he  may  have  everything  to  gain  by  being  unfaithful  to  the  Government  in  the 
discharge  of  his  duties,  since  violators  of  law  are  pretty  apt  to  be  willing  to  pay 
more  for  immunity  than  the  Government  pays  for  fidelity. 

Special  agents  have  no  motive  for  reporting  against  meritorious  cases,  and 
there  is  absolutely  no  truth  whatever  in  the  contrary  statements  sometimes 
made. 

Neither  are  entries  held  for  cancellation  on  special  agents’  reports  upon  merely 
trifling  grounds  or  for  some  technical  failure  of  compliance  with  law.  The  cases 
in  which  such  action  is  taken  are  those  of  flagrant  fraud  and  violation  of  law, 
and  the  evidence  is  required  to  be  of  the  most  convincing  character  before  action 
against  the  entries  is  proceeded  with. 

Your  attention  is  called  to  my  report  to  the  Senate  of  May  6, 1886  (Executive 
Document  No.  134),  copy  herewith,  and  also  to  pages  64  et  seq.,  of  my  annual  re¬ 
port. 

In  further  compliance  with  your  request  I  inclose  a  copy  of  memoranda 
handed  Mr.  Cobb  relative  to  circular  of  June  2, 1886,  temporarily  suspending  pre¬ 
emption,  timber-culture,  and  desert-land  entries.  My  report  upon  the  Senate 
resolution  on  this  subject  has  just  been  submitted  to  the  honorable  Secretary  of 
the  Interior  for  transmittal  to  the  Senate.  It  is  suggested  that  this  report  will 
be  preferable  to  the  memoranda  hastily  furnished  Mr.  Cobb. 

Very  respectfully, 


WM.  A.  J.  SPARKS,  Commissioner. 


Hon.  L.  E.  Payson,  House  of  Representatives. 


The  clamor  is  raised,  too,  that  a  new  set  of  rulings  is  being  made 
under  this  order  at  the  Interior  Department.  This  is  best  refuted  and 
set  at  rest  by  the  following  letter,  appearing  on  the  files  of  the  Land 
Office,  explaining  itself: 

Department  of  the  Interior,  General  Land  Office, 

Washington,  D.  C.,  February  26,  1886. 

Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  letter  of  recent  date 
inclosing  a  letter  addressed  to  you  by  William  Coleman,  of  McCook,  Nebr.,  as¬ 
serting  that  “  the  action  of  the  Hon.  Mr.  Sparks  in  his  stopping  the  issue  of  pat¬ 
ents  has  caused  a  wonderful  amount  of  suffering  this  winter.”  You  also  allude 
to  similar  letters  received  by  you  from  others  and  desire  me  to  favor  you  with 
information  for  intelligent  replies  to  these  letters. 

I  have  the  honor  to  state  that  the  ease  referred  to  by  your  correspondent  is 
not  affected  by  any  order  of  suspension,  and  that  this  is  the  fact  in  respect  to 
similar  complaints  of  which  I  have  heard.  In  the  case  mentioned  the  entry  was 
made  in  1885.  The  work  of  this  office  has  for  many  years  been  at  best  between 
one  and  two  years  in  arrears,  and  frequently  longer.  Entries  are  now  being 
examined  in  regular  course  that  were  made  in  1884.  The  order  of  suspension 
complained  of  affects,  therefore,  only  entries  made  before  that  date  which  would 
not  and  could  not  be  patented  if  there  had  been  no  suspension. 

Another  “  hardship  ”  alleged  by  your  correspondent  is  that  my  rulings  prevent 
settlers  from  selling  or  mortgaging  their  homestead  and  pre-emption  claims. 
I  beg  to  say  that  no  rulings  of  mine  prevent  them  from  doing  so.  Nor  have  I 


20 


changed  any  rulings  upon  that  subject,  but  am  simply  following  the  laws  and 
the  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  matter.  It  is  not  held  by  me,  as  al¬ 
leged,  that  no  deed  or  mortgage  can  be  given  until  after  patent.  Undoubtedly 
a  man  can  sell  or  mortgage  anything  he  has,  and  can  give  to  another  just  as 
good  a  title  as  he  has  himself— and  no  better.  This  is  the  ruling  of  the  Supreme 
Court,  and  it  is  my  ruling. 

In  Myers  vs.  Croft  (13  Wall.,  291)  the  court  said  that  “the  object  of  Congress 
was  attained  when  the  pre-emptor  went  with  clean  hands  to  the  land  office  and 
proved  up  his  right  and  paid  the  Government  for  his  land,”  and  that  the  pre- 
emptor  was  “  free  to  sell  his  land  after  the  entry,  if  at  that  time  he  was  in  good 
faith  the  owner  of  the  land,  and  had  done  nothing  inconsistent  with  the  pro¬ 
visions  of  the  law  on  the  subject.” 

In  this,  as  in  all  Federal  and  State  decisions  upon  the  subject,  the  primary 
proposition  is  that  the  entry  shall  bea  good-faith  entry,  and  the  laws  shall  have 
been  fully  complied  with.  In  such  cases  the  transfer  is  good  ;  not  otherwise. 
Strenuous  efforts  have  repeatedly  been  made  to  assert  the  doctrine  that  al¬ 
though  a  claim  might  be  worthless  while  in  the  hands  of  the  entrymen,  on  ac¬ 
count  of  his  failure  to  comply  with  the  law,  or  for  other  reasons,  it  may  be 
strengthened  and  made  a  matter  of  absolute  right  by  virtue  of  a  transfer  to  a 
third  party.  Such  doctrine  is  without  foundation  in  legal  principle,  and  has 
never  been  admitted  by  the  courts  or  by  this  Department.  “The  purchaser 
takes  no  better  claim  for  title  than  the  entryman  has  to  confer;  and  whatever 
right  is  thus  acquired  is  subject  to  the  subsequent  action  of  the  Land  Depart¬ 
ment.”  (R.  M.  Chrisinger,  4  L.  D.,  247.) 

In  Root  vs.  Shields  (1  Wool.,  SG4)  the  court  said  : 

“  I  think  it  pretty  clear  that  some  at  least  of  these  defendants  purchased  and 
paid  their  money  without  any  knowledge  in  fact  of  any  defect  in  the  title.  Yet 
they  are  not  bona  fide  purchasers,  for  a  valuable  consideration,  without  notice, 
in  the  sense  in  which  the  terms  are  employed  in  courts  of  equity.” 

It  is  the  universal  rule  of  law  that  purchasers  of  an  equity  take  no  better  title 
than  their  grantor  had  to  give.  Persons  purchasing  before  patent  take  only  an 
equity,  and  this  is  settled  law  of  which  everybody  had  notice.  If  an  entry- 
man’s  claim  is  not  good  his  transfer  does  not  make  it  any  better.  This  is  the 
ruling  of  the  courts  followed  by  me. 

If  in  advising  the  public  through  these  rulings  and  decisions  that  entries  must 
be  valid  in  order  to  be  confirmed,  and  if  ftmnd  invalid  they  can  not  be  confirmed, 
and  that  I  mean,  asan  administrator  ofthe  law,  to  find  out  whether  they  are  valid 
or  not,  reminding  purchasers  and  mortgagees  that  they  must  look  to  the  founda¬ 
tion  of  their  titles  as  in  all  other  cases  of  land  transactions  between  man  and 
man,  then  a  service  and  not  an  injury  will  be  done  to  people  who  desire  to  be 
reasonably  prudent  and  careful  in  their  investments. 

It  is  not  believed  that  every  honest  settler  who  has  taken  up  land  for  a  home 
is  suffering  for  an  opportunity  to  mortgage  it.  If  a  man  has  taken  up  land  on 
purpose  to  sell  or  mortgage  it,  he  has  made  a  fraudulent  entry  and  has  no  right 
to  impose  his  pretended  title  upon  his  fellow-citizens  nor  to  prevent  other  men 
from  getting  the  land  from  the  Government  without  paying  him  a  bonus  for 
the  privilege. 

It  is  inconceivable  that  whole  communities  of  farmers  are  anxious  to  mort¬ 
gage  their  actual  farms.  Ordinarily  where  people  live  upon  land  as  homes  they 
want  to  keep  them  from  the  grasp  of  money-brokers  and  usurers  as  long  as  they 
can. 

A  particular  case  which  your  correspondent  presents  is  the  case  of  a  man  who, 
after  an  apparently  doubtful  “  settlement  ”  for  six  months  and  the  most  meager 
“ improvements,”  wants  to  sell  or  mortgage  his  “asserted  ”  home  on  the  public 
lands  in  Nebraska  for  the  most  he  can  get  and  return  to  his  actual  home  in  some 
Eastern  State.  This  is  a  very  common  case.  I  do  not  believe  that  the  popula¬ 
tion  of  a  State  is  increased  by  a  settlement  that  is  abandoned  as  soon  as  its  tem¬ 
porary  purpose  is  accomplished,  nor  that  the  wealth  of  the  State  is  augmented 
by  an  influx  of  money  that  is  immediately  carried  out  of  the  State  in  this  man¬ 
ner. 

Another  case  is  where  a  man  made  an  entry,  sold  the  land  for  $800,  and  the 
purchaser  finds  his  title  not  good.  The  real  hardship  in  this  case  is  that  an  hon¬ 
est  settler  who  wants  to  get  a  home  upon  the  public  lands  is  compelled  to  re¬ 
main  homeless  or  buy  off  a  fictitious  claim.  This  kind  of  hardship  I  am  en¬ 
deavoring  to  prevent. 

The  complaint  of  your  correspondent  is  that  of  aloan  agent.  His  letter  shows 
such  to  be  his  business.  There  are  very  few  complaints  from  entrymen  on  ac¬ 
count  of  suspension  of  patents.  In  fact  there  are  no  complaints  to  this  office  by 
bona  fide  entrymen  because  of  delay  in  the  issue  of  patents.  It  is  the  experience 
of  this  office  that  bona  fide  entrymen  are  in  no  haste  for  their  patents  (thousands 
remaining  in  this  and  the  local  offices  uncalled  for).  But  the  clamor  for  them 
comes  from  the  procurers  of  fraudulent  entries  who  want  patents  issued  before 
falsity  of  the  claims  can  be  ascertained  by  the  Government.  Regular  horne- 
tead  entries  are  not  suspended,  but  are  being  examined  for  patent  as  rapidly 


21 


as  possible.  As  a  matter  of  fact  I  am  now  causing-  the  issue  of  a  greater  num¬ 
ber  of  patents  per  month  than  have  ever  before  been  issued  from  this  office,  and 
in  so  doing  am  causing  to  be  issued  to  lawful  claimants  as  fast  as  they  can  be 
ascertained. 

The  suspensions  that  have  been  made  are  chiefly  pre-emption  and  commuted 
homestead  cases,  of  which  very  few  are  now  found  upon  investigation  to  be 
genuine.  My  predecessor  for  three  years  laid  before  Congress  in  his  annual  and 
special  reports  the  alarming  prevalency  of  fraudulent  entries  of  these  classes. 
On  assuming  charge  of  this  office  I  found  reports  from  officers  appointed  under 
the  late  administration  asserting  as  the  general  result  of  their  examinations,  ex¬ 
perience,  and  information  that  a  very  small  per  cent,  of  such  entries  were  valid, 
and  that  the  public  domain  was  being  largely  taken  under  cover  of  pretended 
settlement  claims  made  for  speculation,  or  in  the  interest  of  corporations  and 
combinations  of  capitalists,  foreign  and  domestic,  who  were  acquiring  title  to 
public  lands  in  vast  bodies  by  fraud,  bribery,  and  perjury.  Under  these  circum¬ 
stances  I  caused  final  action  looking  to  the  issue  of  patents  on  entries  conditional 
upon  settlement,  improvement,  and  cultivation  to  be  suspended  in  districts  of 
country  in  which  the  evidence  before  this  office  is  that  such  entries  are  so  largely 
fraudulent. 

In  so  doing  I  have  exercised  an  authority  which  has  always  been  exercised  by 
the  Land  Department,  and  which  was  recognized  as  lawful  and  proper  by  Presi¬ 
dent  Jackson  and  by  Attorney-General  Butler  as  far  back  as  1836.  (Laws,  Opin¬ 
ions,  and  Instructions,  92;  3  Opinions  Attorney-General,  93.) 

These  early  instructions  and  opinions  were  given  under  laws  existing  prior 
to  the  act  of  July  4,  1836  (5  Statutes,  107),  which  act  imposed  upon  the  Commis¬ 
sioner  of  the  General  Land  Office  increased  powers  and  duties  of  supervision  and 
control  over  the  sale  and  disposal  of  public  lands. 

My  immediate  predecessor  suspended  for  two  or  three  years  certifying  for  the 
issue  of  patents  on  all  lands  in  New  Mexico,  the  greater  portion  of  Colorado, 
and  in  certain  classes  of  entries  in  various  other  States  and  Territories.  Such 
suspensions  have  always  been  found  a  necessary  act  of  administration  to  pre¬ 
vent  illegal  appropriations  of  the  public  domain,  and  it  has  never  been  found 
that  hardship  has  resulted  to  bona  fide  claimants  from  such  suspension. 

There  have  been  hardships  imposed  upon  settlers  under  rulings  and  decisions 
of  this  office  and  Department  in  years  past,  especially  in  connection  with  Con¬ 
gressional  grants  for  railroads  and  other  causes.  When  this  has  occurred  set¬ 
tlers  have  not  been  slow  to  make  their  complaints  direct  to  the  office.  Any  in¬ 
justice  or  fancied  injustice  is  at  once  followed  by  complaints.  But  actual  settlers 
on  public  lands  have  not  complained  to  this  office  of  my  action  in  suspending 
the  issue  of  patents,  or  otherwise  in  respect  to  my  rulings  and  decisions. 

On  the  contrary,  I  have  received  many  letters  expressing  the  gratification  of 
bona  fide  settlers  because  of  my  eff  orts  to  protect  the  public  lands  against  fraud¬ 
ulent  entries,  which  are  justly  regarded  by  them  to  be  inimical  to  their  inter¬ 
ests  no  less  than  frauds  upon  the  Government.  It  is  the  universal  testimony  of 
gentlemen  of  disinterested  observation  who  have  visited  me  that  the  body  of 
the  people  in  the  land  States  and  Territories  approve  my  course. 

It  is  equally  the  universal  testimony  that  money-brokers,  professional  land 
locaters  and  speculators,  attorneys  and  managers  of  cattle  corporations  and 
timber  syndicates,  and  the  Avhole  array  of  persons  engaged  in  the  promotion 
and  procurement  of  illegal  and  fraudulent  entries,  or  realizing  the  benefits 
thereof,  are  just  as  bitterly  opposed  to  this  course  as  bona  fide  settlers  are  heartily 
in  favor  of  it.  The  multitudes  of  complaints  have  been  poured  in  upon  Sena- 
ators  and  Representatives  in  Congress,  purporting  to  be  from  settlers  or  from 
persons  assuming  to  represent  settlers,  or  pretending  to  speak  in  their  behalf, 
I  have  reason  to  believe,  and  also  have  reason  to  know  the  motives  by  which 
such  communications  as  a  class  have  been  inspired  and  the  objects  sought  to  be 
attained. 

It  was  formerly  a  practice  in  this  office  to  make  cases  “  special”  for  patent; 
that  is  to  say,  to  advance  them  out  of  their  order  at  the  instance  of  attorneys 
backed  frequently  by  political  or  official  influence.  Even  suspended  cases  were 
thus  taken  up.and  patents  procured  in  large  numbers  of  cases.  ‘  ‘  Suspensions  of 
patents”  were  not  objected  to  as  long  as  a  way  existed  for  getting  cases  through 
notwithstanding  the  suspension.  On  the  contrary,  the  parties  who  now  com¬ 
plain  of  “  suspensions  ”  were  benefited  by  the  former  practice,  for  the  ordinary 
attorney’s  fee  of  $25  for  getting  a  patent  upon  an  unsuspended  case  was  imme¬ 
diately  increased  by  a  demand  for  $100  more  as  soon  as  a  case  was  found  in  the 
suspended-list.  Now,  no  honest  settler  can  afford,  nor  does  he  need,  to  pay  $100 
or  $25  or  any  other  sum  to  hasten  the  issue  of  his  patent.  It  is  not  surprising, 
therefore,  that  these  expedited  cases  turnout  to  be  fraudulent  after  patents  have 
issued  and  it  is  too  late  to  remedy  the  wrong  by  administrative  action. 

I  found  it  necessary,  as  a  matter  of  justice  to  all  claimants  not  less  than  as  a 
measure  in  the  public  interest,  to  refuse  to  make  any  ease  “  special.”  That  has 
been  the  fundamental  grievance  against  my  administration,  of  attorneys  who 
thus  found  a  profitable  vocation  cut  off. 


22 


Again,  my  early  rulings  and  decisions  clearly  indicated  a  purpose  to  hold  land 
grant  railroad  corporations  to  the  line  of  the  law,  instead  of  permitting  their 
agents  and  attorneys  to  continue  control  of  the  practice  and  policy  of  this  office. 
In  like  manner  it  was  seen  that  magnified  claims  under  alleged  Spanish  and 
Mexican  grants  were  likely  to  meet  with  scrutiny  they  had  never  before  re¬ 
ceived,  and  finally  that  all  claims  for  public  laud  would  be  judged  by  the  laws, 
and  compliance  with  law  insisted  upon,  and  that  robbery  of  public  lands  should 
be  prevented  so  far  as  I  had  power  to  that  end. 

As  soon  as  this  wTas  made  clear  an  organized  movement  was  started  in  this 
city  with  a  view  of  attempting  to  break  down  any  reform  in  the  administration 
of  the  Land  Department  and  to  restore  the  era  of  successful  frauds,  favoritism, 
and  fees.  Circulars  were  issued  and  sent  broadcast  to  local  attorneys  and  land 
and  money  brokers,  laying  out  a  plan  of  campaign  and  advising  them  to  cause 
letters  to  be  written  to  Senators  and  Representatives  in  Congress  protesting 
against  my  action  in  suspending  final  action  pending  the  issue  of  patents,  and 
representing  the  hardships  to  settlers  resulting  from  such  action. 

That  the  letters  with  which  Senators  have  been  deluged  are  products  of  this 
inspiration  there  is  no  manner  of  doubt.  Individual  money-lenders  wrho,  in 
their  eagerness  to  exact  a  rate  of  interest  that  no  cultivator  of  the  soil  can  pay 
and  keep  his  land,  having  loaned  money  without  looking  to  their  security,  or 
loan  agents  who  to  get  their  percentages  on  the  investments  of  their  principals 
have  taken  risks  beyond  the  bounds  of  prudence  or  reason,  may  of  their  own 
motion  have  added  to  the  volume  of  systematic  complaints,  but  the  general  plan 
of  operations,  in  which  all  having  a  similarily  of  interest  could  join,  was  marked 
out  as  above  stated. 

In  attempting  to  stand  by  the  landmarks  of  the  lawr  I  was  quite  as  well  aware 
at  the  outset  as  now  of  the  interested  hostility  that  such  course  would  evoke.  I 
have  not  expected  that  the  unlawful  clutch  of  speculation  could  be  loosened  from 
the  public  lands  without  a  struggle:  nor  that  an  agressive  domination,  disas¬ 
trous  to  present  and  prohibitive  of  future  actual  inhabitancy  over  half  a  conti¬ 
nent,  could  be  checked  or  controlled  without  encountering  a  determined  resist¬ 
ance. 

What  is  complained  of,  Mr.  Senator,  to  yourself  and  others  is  in  reality,  in  my 
opinion,  that,  as  an  officer  charged  with  the  administration  of  the  lawr,  I  have  re¬ 
garded  it  my  duty  to  certify  for  patents  to  issue  to  those  entrymen  only  who 
have  made  bona  fide  entries  and  have  complied  with  the  conditions  prescribed 
by  law  as  conditions-precedent  to  entitle  them  to  have  patents,  and  that,  to  the 
extent  of  my  official  responsibility  and  the  means  which  Congress  provides,  I 
am  endeavoring  to  prevent  the  consummation  of  frauds  upon  the  public  domain. 

The  letter  of  your  correspondent  is  herewith  returned. 

Very  respectfully, 


WM.  A.  J.  SPARKS,  Commissioner. 


Hon.  Charles  F.  Manderson, 

United  States  Senate. 


Before  the  gentleman  from  Kansas  proceeds  I  wish  only  to  say  in 
reply  to  my  friend  from  Ohio  [Mr.  Ezra  B.  Taylor]  that  from  1834 
down  to  the  present  day  the  power  of  the  Commissioner  of  the  General 
Land  Office  and  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  to  investigate  frauds  and 
refuse  patents  after  final  certificate  has  never  been  questioned  in  the 
Interior  Department.  I  have  the  authorities  here  at  hand. 

I  deny  the  doctrine  asserted  here  that  the  final  certificate  is  title. 
I  deny  that  the  Commissioner  is  only  a  mere  clerk  to  ratify  the  finding 
of  the  register,  and  I  assert  that  until  the  patent  issues  the  power  re¬ 
sides  in  the  Department  to  inquire  into  alleged  fraud  and  when  it  is 
proven  to  deny  the  patent,  and  I  cite  some  of  the  many  cases  on  the 
question,  all,  except  one  by  Judge  Deady  of  one  of  the  courts  in  Oregon, 
to  the  same  purport. 

The  practice  has  been  uniform  in  the  Interior  Department,  as  I  have 
said. 

Mr.  Attorney-General  Butler  in  1834  gave  an  opinion  (3  Op.  A.  G., 
93),  the  substance  of  which  is  that  the  local  land  officers  act  in  a  quasi¬ 
judicial  capacity  in  determining  the  questions  of  fact  on  which  the  final 
certificate  issues,  but  the  issuing  of  patents,  however,  depends  on  the 
Commissioner,  who  may  suspend  them  where  the  decisions  of  the  local 
officers  were  obtained  by  fraud  or  founded  on  material  errors  of  fact  or 
law. 


23 


This  has  been  followed  without  exception  to  this  date,  notable  cases 
being  the  Charlemagne  town  case,  decided  on  review  by  Mr.  Secretary 
Teller  February  20,  1884  (Decisions,  volume  2,  page  780);  the  Cogswell 
case  (volume  3,  Decisions),  July  21,  1884,  by  Secretary  Teller,  and  the 
Chrisinger  case,  by  Mr.  Secretary  Lamar,  January  25,  1886. 

And  in  the  courts  the  authorities  are  numerous  that  not  only  has  the 
Department  the  power  to  investigate  after  final  certificate,  but  the  pur¬ 
chaser  from  the  entry  man  takes  no  better  title  than  theentryman  has. 

I  call  attention  to  a  collection  of  cases  on  the  question  in  a  letter  of 
the  Commissioner  in  the  Record  of  June  22  instant.. 

The  questions  are:  First,  that  the  action  of  the  register  and  receiver 
is  conclusive  except  in  case  of  fraud;  second,  that  the  assignment  of  an 
entry  before  patent  estops  an  inquiry  into  the  validity  of  the  claim  even 
in  case  of  fraud;  and  third,  that  an  entry  of  public  lands  can  be  set 
aside  for  cause  only  by  the  judicial  courts. 

These  propositions  have  been  advanced  in  scores  of  cases  before  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  and  the  supreme  courts  of  the  sev¬ 
eral  States,  and  have  as  repeatedly  been  denied. 

The  propositions  that  the  transfer  of  a  claim  adds  anything  to  its 
efficiency  against  the  United  States,  or  that  a  certificate  of  purchase  is 
in  the  nature  of  an  investiture  of  title,  or  that  the  purchaser  of  an  entry 
before  patent  is  in  any  legal  sense  an  innocent  purchaser,  are  refuted 
by  decisions  hereinbefore  cited.  Many  others  might  be  referred  to. 

In  Irvine  vs.  Marshall  (20  How7.,  555)  it  was  held  that  although  a 
certificate  maybe  the  subject  of  bargain  and  sale,  yet  the  United  States 
can  take  care  that  conveyances  shall  be  to  him  who  is  in  good  faith  its 
vendee,  and  the  court  said: 

The  reception  of  the  certificate  of  purchase  as  evidence  of  title  may  be  regular 
and  convenient  as  a  rule  of  business,  but  it  has  not  been  anywhere  established 
as  conclusive  evidence,  much  less  has  it  been  adjudged  to  forbid  or  exclude 
proofs  of  the  real  and  just  rights  of  claimants. 

A  mere  declaration  in  writing  by  a  vender  that  the  vendee  has  paid 
the  purchase-price  of  land,  and  that  he  intends  to  give  him  a  deed,  is 
not  a  document  purporting  to  convey  title.  (Osterman  vs.  Baldwin,  6 
Wall.,  116.) 

Legal  title  does  not  pass  by  contract  of  purchase  without  deed,  and 
one  who  holds  or  claims  by  contract  only  is  not  protected  as  a  bona  fide 
purchaser  for  value.  (Boone  vs.  Chiles,  10  Pet.,  177.) 

It  will  not  do  for  a  purchaser  to  close  his  eyes  to  facts  which  are  open 
to  his  investigation  for  the  exercise  of  that  diligence  which  the  law  im¬ 
poses.  Such  purchasers  are  not  protected.  (Boush  vs.  Wall.,  15  Pet., 
111.) 

Purchasers  by  quitclaim  deed  even  are  not  regarded  as  bona  fide  pur¬ 
chasers  without  notice.  (Oliver  vs.  Piatt,  3  How.,  333;  May  vs.  Le 
Claire,  11  Wall.,  217;  Dickerson  vs.  Colegrove,  100  U.  S.,  578.) 

Party  without  title  can  not  acquire  it  by  payment  of  taxes  on  land. 
(Homestead  Co.  vs.  Valley  R.  R.,  17  Wall.,  153.) 

A  purchaser  of  land  must  look  to  every  part  of  the  title  which  is  es¬ 
sential  to  its  validity.  (Brush  vs.  W7are,  15  Pet.,  112.) 

States  have  no  power  to  declare  certificates  of  purchase  of  equal  dig¬ 
nity  with  a  patent.  (Bagnell  vs.  Broderick,  13  Pet.,  436.) 

If,  before  patent  issues,  the  Land  Department  finds  the  entry  erro¬ 
neous,  it  may  treat  the  assignment  as  void,  and,  notwithstanding  it,  set 
the  entry  aside.  (Franklin  vs.  Kelley,  2  Nebr..  78.) 

The  act  of  1841  provides  that  the  entry  shall  be  made  with  the  register  of  the 
Land  Office.  The  acts  organizing  the  Land  Department  of  the  Government  pro- 


24 


vide  that  the  action  of  the  register  shall  be  subject  to  revision  and  supervision 
by  the  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office;  and  entry  with  the  register 
is  dependent  upon  the  approval  of  his  superior,  so  far  as  the  course  and  order 
of  the  business  go;  and,  without  the  affirmative  action  of  the  Commissioner, 
the  patents  issue.  It  would  be  a  great  evil  if  a  party  claiming  a  pre-emption 
right  could,  as  soon  as  his  entry  was  made,  convey  the  land  to  a  third  party, 
and  thereby  prevent  the  Commissioner  from  re-examining  and  disapproving 
the  entry  if  it  was  erroneously  allowed.  Such  course  would  expose  the  Gov¬ 
ernment  to  serious  loss,  and  pervert  a  statute  conceived  in  a  wise  policy  and  a 
generous  spirit  into  a  means  of  perpetrating  the  greatest  frauds.  This  is  the 
mischief  aimed  at.  The  object  was  to  protect  the  Government,  and  in  this  view 
the  language — that  the  right  secured  by  the  act  should  not  be  assigned — is  apt. 
As  between  the  claimant  and  the  Government,  his  interest  is  a  right  merely 
until  the  patent  issues.  It  is  subject  to  reinvestigation  and,  on  inquiry,  to  be 
disregarded  by  the  Department.  Until  the  patent  issues,  it  is  treated  by  the 
Government  not  as  a  title  but  as  a  right  or  a  claim  of  right. 

I  admit  that  if  an  entry  under  the  act  is  made  with  the  register,  and  the  Com¬ 
missioner  finds  that  it  was  illegally  allowed,  as,  for  instance,  if  the  entry  is  upon 
lands  not  subject  to  pre-emption,  and  he  sets  it  aside,  aconveyance  intermediate 
the  entry  and  the  official  act  of  vacating  it  would  be  void.  Such  a  conveyance 
would  be  within  the  mischief.  But  if  a  valid  entry  be  made,  and  a  patent  issued 
upon  it,  a  conveyance  intermediate  those  two  acts  would  not  be  within  the 
mischief.  The  issue  of  the  patent  is  a  confirmation  of  the  entry ;  it  relates  back 
to  it,  and  takes  effect  from  it.  (Astrom  vs.  Hammond.  3  McLean,  407.) 

The  courts  have  often  ruled  that  where  the  right  to  a  patent  has  once 
become  vested  in  a  purchaser  of  public  lands  it  is  equivalent,  so  far  as 
the  Government  is  concerned,  to  a  patent  issued.  (Stark  vs.  Starrs,  6 
Wall.,  402;  Simmons  vs.  Wagner,  101  U.  S.,  260.)  But  none  of  these 
decisions  hold  that  the  certificate  aud  receipt  of  the  register  and  receiver 
is  conclusive  evidence  that  a  right  has  vested,  nor  that  a  patent  is  not 
necessary  for  the  conveyance  of  the  legal  title.  In  Myers  vs.  Croft  (13 
Wall.,  291),  the  court  says  that  the  pre-emptor  could  sell  after  entry  if 
he  came  up  and  made  his  proof  and  payment  “with  clean  hands.” 
But  he  must  be  in  good  faith  the  owner  of  the  land  and  have  “done 
nothing  inconsistent  with  the  provisions  of  the  law  on  the  subject.'” 

The  validity  of  a  conveyance  depends  upon  the  validity  of  the  entry, 
and  that  is  always  a  proper  subject  of  inquiry  by  the  Land  Department 
at  any  time  before  patent  issues,  and  by  the  courtsin  a  proper  proceed¬ 
ing  afterward. 

In  the  case  of  Harkness  vs.  Underhill  (1  Black.,  316),  counsel  for 
plaintiff  urged  that — 

The  register  and  receiver  having  sold  the  land  to  Waters  in  conformity  with 
the  instructions  of  the  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office  had  no  further 
power  or  jurisdiction  over  it.  Neither  had  the  Commissioner  of  the  General 
Land  Office  power  to  set  aside  the  sale  even  for  fraud.  This  could  only  be  done 
by  judicial  authority. 

Counsel  for  defendant  in  reply  cited  the  language  of  the  supreme 
court  of  Missouri  (in  Green  vs.  Hill,  9  Mo.,  322): 

It  is  the  duty  of  the  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office  to  revise  the 
proceedings  of  the  register  and  receiver  and  vacate  entries  which  may  have 
been  illegally  made,  and  thereby  arrest  the  completion  of  a  title  originating  in 
fraud,  mistake,  or  violation  of  law.  And  to  the  same  effect:  Perry  vs.  O’Han¬ 
lon,  11  Mo., 585;  Huntsucker  vs.  Clark,  12  Mo., 333;  Nelson  rs.  Simms,  23  Miss., 
383;  Glen  rs.  Thistle,  23  Minn.,  42;  Mitchell  vs.  Cobb,  13  Ala.,  137;  Dickinson  vs. 
Brown,  9  Smeade  &  Marshall,  130;  Gray  rs.  McCance,  4  Ill. 

The  court  (Mr.  Justice  Catrou)  said:  “The  question  is  again  raised 
whether  this  entry  having  been  allowed  by  the  register  and  receiver 
could  be  set  aside  by  the  Commissioner. 

This  question  has  several  times  been  raised  and  decided  in  this  court  uphold¬ 
ing  the  Commissioner’s  powers.  (Garland  vs.  Winn,  20  How.,  8;  Lytle  rs.  The 
State  of  Arkansas,  22  How.) 

In  Barnard  vs.  Ashley  (18  How.,  43),  the  court  said  that  the  power 
of  supervision  by  the  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office  ‘  ‘  is  ex- 


25 


ercised  by  virtue  of  the  act  of  July  4,  1836,  which  provides  ‘that from 
and  after  the  passage  of  this  act  the  executive  duties  now  prescribed, 
or  which  may  hereafter  be  prescribed  by  law  appertaining  to  the  sur¬ 
vey  and  sale  of  the  public  lands  of  the  United  States,  or  in  any  wise 
respecting  such  public  lands,  and  also  such  as  relate  to  private  claims 
of  land  and  the  issuing  of  patents  for  all  grants  of  land  under  the  au¬ 
thority  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  shall  be  subject  to  the 
supervision  and  control  of  the  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office, 
under  the  direction  of  the  President  of  the  United  States.’  ” 

The  necessity  of  “supervision  and  control,”  vested  in  the  Commissioner  act¬ 
ing  under  the  direction  of  the  President,  is  too  manifest  to  require  comment, 
further  than  to  say  that  the  facts  found  in  this  record  show  that  nothing  is  more 
easily  done  than  apparently  to  establish,  by  ex  parte  affidavits,  cultivation  and 
possession  of  particular  quarter-sections  of  lands,  when  the  fact  is  untrue.  That 
the  act  of  1836  modifies  the  powers  of  registers  and  receivers  to  the  extent  of 
the  Commissioner’s  action  in  the  instance  before  us,  we  hold  to  be  true.  But 
if  the  construction  of  the  act  of  1836  to  this  effect  were  doubtful,  the  practice 
under  it  for  nearly  twenty  years  could  not  be  disturbed  without  manifest  im¬ 
propriety. 

The  case  relied  on,  of  Wilcox  vs.  Jackson  (13  Pet.,  511)  was  an  ejectment  suit, 
commenced  in  February,  1836;  and  as  to  the  acts  of  the  register  and  receiver,  in 
allowing  the  entry  in  that  case,  the  Commissioner  had  no  power  of  supervision, 
such  as  was  given  him  by  act  of  July  4,  1836,  after  the  case  was  in  court. 

In  the  next  case  (9  How.,  333)  all  the  controverted  facts  on  which  both  sides 
relied  had  transpired  and  were  concluded  before  the  act  of  July  4, 1836,  was 
passed;  and  therefore  its  construction, as  regards  the  Commissioner’s  powers 
under  the  act  of  1836,  was  not  involved.  Whereas,  in  the  case  under  considera¬ 
tion,  the  additional  proceedings  were  had  befoi*e  the  register  and  receiver  in 
1837,  and  were  subject  to  the  new  powers  conferred  on  the  Commissioner. 

In  Vaquire  vs.  Tyler  (1  Black.  195)  the  court  recognized  and  affirmed  the 
“plenary  powers  conferred  upon  the  Commissioner  by  the  act  of  July  4,1836,” 
and  said  that  the  power  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  under  the  act  of  March 
3, 1849,  to  revise  on  appeal  is  “  necessarily  coextensive  with  the  powers  toad- 
judge  by  the  Commissioner.” 

In  Shepley  vs.  Cowan,  (91  U.  S.,  340),  the  court  say: 

The  officers  of  the  Land  Department  are  specially  designated  by  law  to  re¬ 
ceive,  consider,  and  pass  upon  proofs  presented  with  respect  to  settlement  upon 
the  public  lands  with  a  view  to  secure  the  rights  of  pre-emption.  If  they  err  in 
the  construction  of  the  law  applicable  to  any  case,  or  if  fraud  is  practiced  upon 
them,  or  they  themselves  are  chargeable  with  fraudulent  practices,  their  rulings 
may  be  reviewed  and  annulled  by  the  courts  when  a  controversy  arises  between 
private  parties  founded  upon  their  decisions.  • 

In  Marquiz  vs.  Frisbie  (101  United  States,  475)  the  court  say: 

We  have  repeatedly  held  that  the  courts  will  not  interfere  with  the  officers  o^ 
the  Government  while  in  the  discharge  of  their  duties  in  disposing  of  the  public 
lands,  either  by  injunction  or  mandamus.  (Litehfieldrs.  Register  and  Receiver, 
9  Wool.  ,552;  Gaines  vs.  Thompson,?  Id.,  347;  The  Secretary  vs.  McGarrahan,  9 
Jd.,  289.) 

After  the  United  States  has  parted  with  its  title  and  the  individual  has  be¬ 
come  vested  with  it,  the  equities  subject  to  which  he  holds  it  may  be  enforced, 
but  not  before.  (Johnson  vs.  Towsley.  13  Id.,  72;  Shefley  vs.  Cowan,  91  U.  S., 
330.) 

We  did  not  deny  the  right  of  the  courts  to  deal  with  the  possession  of  the  land 
prior  to  the  issue  of  the  patent  or  to  enforce  contracts  between  the  parties  con¬ 
cerning  the  land.  But  it  is  impossible  thus  to  transfer  a  title  which  is  yet  in  the 
United  States. 

In  the  United  States  vs.  Schurz  (102  United  States,  395)  the  court 
say: 

The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  declares  that  Congress  shall  have  the 
power  to  dispose  of  and  make  all  needful  rules  and  regulations  respecting  the 
territory  and  other  property  belonging  to  the  United  States.  Under  this  pro¬ 
vision  the  sale  of  the  public  lands  was  placed  by  statute  under  the  control  of  the 
Secretary  of  the  Interior.  To  aid  him  in  the  performance  of  this  duty  a  bureau 
was  created,  at  the  head  of  which  is  the  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land 
Office  with  several  subordinates.  To  them,  as  a  special  tribunal,  Congress  con¬ 
fided  the  executing  of  the  laws  which  regulate  the  surveying,  the  selling,  and 
the  general  care  of  these  lands. 


26 


Congress  has  also  enacted  a  system  of  laws  by  which  “rights  to  these 
lands  may  be  acquired  and  the  title  of  the  Government  conveyed  to  the 
citizens.  This  court  has  with  a  strong  hand  upheld  the  doctrine  that  so 
long  as  the  legal  title  of  these  lands  remained  in  the  United  States, 
and  the  proceedings  for  acquiring  it  were  as  yet  infieri ,  the  courts  would 
not  interfere  to  control  the  exercise. of  the  power  vested  in  their  tribu¬ 
nal.  To  that  doctrine  we  still  adhere.” 

And  again  (Id.,  411): 

The  question  whether  any  particular  tract  belonging  to  the  Government  was 
open  to  sale,  pre-emption,  or  homestead  right  is  in  every  instance  a  question  of 
law  as  applied  to  the  facts  for  the  determination  of  those  officers. 

In  Quinby  vs.  Cowlan  (104  U.  S.,  420)  the  court  say: 

The  laws  of  the  United  States  prescribe  with  particularity  the  manner  in 
which  portions  of  public  domain  may  be  acquired  by  settlers.  They  require 
personal  settlement  upon  the  lands  desired  and  their  inhabitation  and  improve¬ 
ment,  and  a  declaration  of  the  settler’s  acts  and  purposes  to  be  made  in  the 
proper  office  of  the  district  within  a  limited  time  after  the  public  surveys  have 
been  extended  over  the  lands.  By  them  a  land  department  has  been  created  to 
supervise  all  the  various  steps  required  for  the  acquisition  of  the  title  of  the  Gov¬ 
ernment.  Its  officers  are  required  to  receive,  consider,  and  pass  upon  the  proofs 
furnished  as  to  the  alleged  settlements  upon  the  lands,  and  their  improvement 
when  pre-emption  rights  are  claimed,  and,  in  case  of  conflicting  claims  to  the 
same  tract,  to  hear  the  contesting  parties. 

The  proofs  offered  in  compliance  with  the  law  are  to  be  presented,  in  the  first 
instance,  to  the  officers  of  the  district  where  the  land  is  situated,  and  from  their 
decision  an  appeal  lies  to  the  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  and  from 
him  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior.  For  mere  errors  of  judgment  as  to  the 
weight  of  evidence  on  these  subjects  by  any  of  the  subordinate  officers  the  only 
remedy  is  by  an  appeal  to  his  superior  of  the  Department.  The  courts  can  not 
exercise  any  direct  appellate  jurisdiction  over  the  rulings  of  those  officers  or  of 
their  superior  in  the  Department  in  such  matters,  nor  can  they  reverse  or  cor¬ 
rect  them  in  a  collateral  proceeding  between  private  parties. 

In  this  case,  the  allegation  that  false  and  fraudulent  representations  as  to  the 
settlement  of  the  plaintiff  were  made  to  the  officers  of  the  Land  Department  is 
negatived  by  the  finding  of  the  court.  It  would  lead  to  endless  litigation  and 
be  fruitful  of  evil  if  a  supervisory  power  were  vested  in  the  courts  over  the  action 
of  the  numerous  officers  of  the  Land  Department  on  the  mere  questions  of  fact 
presented  for  their  determination.  It  is  only  when  those  officers  have  miscon¬ 
strued  the  law  applicable  to  the  case  as  established  before  the  Department,  and 
thus  have  denied  to  parties  rights  which,  upon  a  correct  construction,  would  have 
been  conceded  to  them,  or  where  misrepresentations  and  fraud  have  been  prac¬ 
ticed  necessarily  affecting  their  judgment,  that  the  courts  can  in  a  proper  pro¬ 
ceeding  interfere  and  refuse  to  give  effect  to  their  action.  On  this  subject  we  have 
repeatedly  and  with  emphasis  expressed  our  opinion,  and  the  matter  should 
be  deemed  settled.  (Johnson  vs.  Towsley,  13  Wall.,  72;  Shepley  vs.  Cowan,  91 
U.  S.,  330-310 ;  Moore  vs.  Robbins,  96  Ibid,  530.) 

The  doctrine  applicable  to  the  conclusive  character  of  the  solemn  judgments 
of  courts,  with  full  jurisdiction  over  the  parties,  and  the  subject-matter,  made 
after  appearance,  pleading,  and  contest  by  parties  on  both  sides,  can  not  be  prop¬ 
erly  applied  to  the  proceedings  of  the  land  office,  where  no  issue  is  taken,  no 
adversary  proceedings  had,  no  contest  made,  and  the  land  officers  act  only  on 
such  evidence  as  claimant  presents,  with  no  means  of  controverting  its  truth. 
(United  States  Minor,  114  United  States,  243.) 

The  quasi-judicial  nature  of  the  functions  of  land  officers  has  reference  only 
to  cases  in  which  individuals  have,  as  against  each  other,  contested  the  right 
to  a  patent  before  them.  (Id.) 

Where  a  patent  has  been  obtained  through  mistake  or  by  fraud  and  perjury, 
and  there  are  no  innocent  holders  for  value,  the  legal  title  conveyed  by  the  pat¬ 
ent  may  be  set  aside  in  a  court  of  equity.  (Id.) 

The  principles  settled  by  the  courts  are  that  the  action  of  registers  and  re¬ 
ceivers  in  admitting  an  entry  of  public  lands  is  not  conclusive,  but  is  subject  to 
review  by  the  superior  officers  of  the  Land  Department,  by  appeal  in  cases  of 
contest  between  private  parties,  and  as  a  matter  of  executive  supervision  in 
cases  not  of  individual  contest ;  that  the  latter  are  cases  bet  ween  the  Govern¬ 
ment  and  the  entryman  alone  ;  that  assignees  before  patent  have  no  standing 
as  innocent  purchasers  ;  that  until  patent  issues  on  public-land  entries  the  legal 
title  to  the  land  remains  in  the  United  States ;  that  the  Commissioner  of  the  Gen¬ 
eral  Land  Office  may  reject  and  cancel  unpatented  entries  for  illegality  and 
fraud;  that  this  is  necessarily  an  act  of  executive  jurisdiction  ;  that  the  duties 
of  supervising  the  disposal  of  public  lands  are  executive  duties  and  are  not  the 


27 


subject  of  judicial  interference  ;  that  the  question  of  passing  the  title  of  the 
United  States  upon  an  entry  of  public  lands  under  the  public-land  lawisessen- 
tially  a  question  of  executive  and  not  of  judicial  determination  ;  that  the  point 
where  the  jurisdiction  of  the  courts  begin  is  the  point  at  which  executive  juris¬ 
diction  ceases,  namely,  after  patent  has  been  issued,  when,  in  a  proper  proceed¬ 
ing,  the  courts  may  intervene  to  correct  the  errors  of  executive  action  ;  and  that 
it  is  only  after  the  conveyance  of  legal  title  by  patent  that  purchasers  for  value 
are  protected  by  the  courts. 

I  do  not  intend  to  go  into  an  argument  as  to  the  legality  of  the  re¬ 
cent  order  temporarily  suspending  certain  classes  of  entries  pending 
the  proposed  legislation  repealing  the  pre-emption  laws.  My  colleague 
on  the  committee  [Mr.  Cobb]  has  announced  his  intention  of  printing 
in  the  .Record  Senate  Ex.  Doc.  170,  which  shows  a  long  line  of  prece¬ 
dents,  running  back  for  over  fifty  years,  of  suspending  the  right  of  pur¬ 
chase  or  entry  of  public  lands  for  a  limited  time  in  anticipation  of  leg¬ 
islation  proposed  and  pending. 

Not,  as  the  gentleman  from  Maine  [Mr.  Nelson]  assumes  in  his  re¬ 
marks,  for  railroad  purposes,  after  a  map  of  definite  location  of  the 
road  was  filed  in  the  Department.  Not  at  all;  most  of  the  cases  re¬ 
ferred  to  were  in  advance  of  legislation,  and  all  before  any  map  of  def¬ 
inite  location  was  filed.  The  gentleman’s  argument  is  based  on  an  en¬ 
tire  misapprehension  of  the  facts,  for  the  purpose  of  giving  the  corpora¬ 
tions  to  be  benefited  the  fullest  advantage  of  all  the  public  lands. 

I  read  a  few  extracts  from  that  document: 

[Circular.] 

Department  of  the  Interior,  General  Land  Office, 

Washington,  D.  C.,  June  2,  1886. 

To  registers  and  receivers  United  States  land  offices  : 

Gentlemen  :  The  repeal  of  the  pre-emption,  timber-culture,  and  desert-land 
laws  being  now  the  subject  of  consideration  by  Congress,  all  applications  to  en¬ 
ter  lands  under  said  laws  are  hereby  suspended  from  and  after  this  date  until 
the  1st  day  of  August,  1886,  and  you  are  hereby  directed  to  receive  no  filings  or 
new  applications  or  entry  under  said  laws  during  said  time. 

WM.  A.  J.  SPARKS,  Commissioner. 

Approved. 

L.  Q.  C.  LAMAR,  Secretary . 

I  have  the  honor  to  state  that  a  circular  of  which  the  foregoing  is  a  copy  was 
issued  from  this  office  with  the  approval  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  on  the 
2d  instant. 

The  authority  to  issue  such  circular  was  founded  upon  precedents,  deemed  to 
be  sufficient,  of  more  than  forty  years’  standing,  sanctioned  by  judicial  decisions 
and  by  Congressional  recognition. 

The  legislative  authority  upon  which  these  precedents  were  established  ap¬ 
pears  to  have  been  drawn  from  the  general  powers  of  supervision  and  adminis¬ 
tration  conferred  upon  the  executive  department  (act  of  April,  1812, 2  Statutes, 
716;  July  4, 1836, 5  Statutes,  107  ;  3  March,  1849, 9  Statutes,  395 ;  Revised  Statutes, 
sections  441, 452),  and  upon  the  special  recognition  of  the  power  of  the  Presi¬ 
dent  to  create  reservations  of  public  lands  found  in  the  pre-emption  act  of  1841 
and  similar  acts. 

The  following  are  among  the  leading  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  in  which  the  authority  of  the  President  to  reserve  public  lands 
from  entry  has  been  affirmed,  the  acts  of  the  officers  of  the  Land  Department  in 
this  respect  recognized  as  the  acts  of  the  President,  and  the  legal  effect  of  such 
reservations  upheld. 

In  1827,  in  the  case  of  Chotard  vs.  Pope  (12  Wheat.,  586),  the  court  said  : 

“  An  authority  4  to  enter  ’  a  certain  quantity  of  land  does  not  authorize  a  loca¬ 
tion  on  lands  previously  appropriated  or  withdrawn  from  the  lands  offered  for 
sale.” 

In  McConnell  vs.  Trustees  (12  Wheat.,  582),  the  court  recognized  41  the  reason¬ 
ableness  of  reserving  a  public  spring  for  public  uses.” 

InKissell  vs.  Saint  Louis,  an  entry  was  held  invalid  because  the  land  had  been 
“reserved  from  sale”  by  officers  of  the  Land  Department.  (18  How.,  19.) 

At  the  request  of  the  Secretary  of  War,  the  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land 
Office  in  1824  colored  and  marked  upon  a  map  a  section  of  land  as  reserved  for 
military  purposes  and  directed  it  to  be  reserved  from  sale  for  those  purposes. 


28 


In  the  case  of  Wilcox  vs.  Jackson  (13  Pet.,  513),  involving  this  land,  the  Supreme 
Court  reciting  the  foregoing  said  : 

“We  consider  this,  too,  as  having  been  done  by  authority  of  law,  for  among 
other  provisions  in  the  act  of  1830  all  lands  are  exempted  from  pre-emption 
which  are  reserved  from  sale  by  order  of  the  President.  Now,  although  the 
immediate  agent  in  requiring  this  reservation  was  the  Secretary  of  War,  yet  we 
feel  justified  in  presuming  that  it  was  done  by  the  approbation  and  direction  of 
the  President.  The  President  speaks  and  acts  through  the  heads  of  the  several 
Departments  in  relation  to  subjects  which  appertain  to  their  respective  duties. 
Both  military  posts  and  Indian  affairs,  including  agencies,  belong  to  the  War 
Department.  Hence  we  consider  the  act  of  the  War  Department  in  requiring 
this  reservation  to  be  made  as  being  in  legal  contemplation  the  act  of  the  Pres¬ 
ident;  and,  consequently,  that  the  reservation  thus  made  was,  in  legal  effect,  a 
reservation  made  by  order  of  the  President,  within  the  terms  of  the  act  of  Con¬ 
gress.” 

In  the  pre-emption  act  of  1830  it  is  provided  that  the  right  of  pre-emption  con¬ 
templated  by  the  act  shall  not  extend  “to  any  land  which  is  reserved  from.sale 
by  act  of  Congress  or  by  order  of  the  President.”  In  the  pre-emption  act  of  1841 
(section  2258,  Revised  Statutes)  it  is  provided  that  “lands  included  in  any  reser¬ 
vation  by  any  treaty,  law,  or  proclamation  of  the  President  of  the  United  States  ” 
shall  not  be  subject  to  entry  under  the  act  The  act  of  1853,  extending  the  pre¬ 
emption  laws  to  California,  excepted  from  their  operation  lands  “reserved  by 
competent  authority.” 

In  Grisar  vs.  McDowell  (6  Wall.,  381),  the  Supreme  Court,  construing  the  fore¬ 
going  acts,  say : 

“The  provisions  in  the  acts  of  1830  and  1841  show  very  clearly  that  by  ‘  com¬ 
petent  authority’  is  meant  the  authority  of  the  President  and  officers  acting 
under  his  direction.” 

And  the  court  further  said  in  this  case  “  that  it  was  of  no  consequence  to  the 
plaintiff  whether  or  not  the  President  possessed  sufficient  authority  to  make  the 
reservation.”  It  was  enough  that  the  title  remained  in  the  United  States.  A 
legal  entry  could  not  be  made  while  the  lands  were  in  the  reserved  condition. 

In  1846  Congress  made  a  grant  of  lands  for  the  improvement  of  the  Des  Moines 
River  below  the  Raccoon  Fork.  This  grant  was  constructively  held  by  the 
Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office  and  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  to 
apply  to  lands  above  the  Fork,  and  lands  above  the  Fork,  amounting  to  up¬ 
ward  of  270,001)  acres,  were  on  June  1,  1819,  withdrawn  from  sale  and  entry  by 
this  office  for  the  benefit  of  the  river  grant.  It  was  afterward  held  by  the  Su¬ 
preme  Court  that  there  was  no  grant  above  Raccoon  Fork.  But  under  the  ex¬ 
cepting  provisions  of  an  act  making  a  railroad  grant,  subsequent  to  the  river 
grant,  which  subsequent  act  declared  that  lands  reserved  to  the  United  States 
in  any  manner  by  competent  authority,  for  any  purpose  whatever,  should  be 
reserved  from  the  operation  of  the  act,  the  courts  have  steadily  held  that  lands 
so  reserved  by  the  Land  Departmentfor  river  improvement  purposes,  although 
under  an  erroneous  construction  of  the  law,  did  not  pass  with  the  railroad  grant, 
and  have  also  held  that  the  withdrawal  was  an  inhibition  against  settlement 
and  pre-emption  rights.  (Wolcott  vs.  Des  Domes,  5  Wall.,  681;  Homestead  Co. 
vs.  Valley  R.R.,  17  Wall.,  153;  Wolsey  va.  Chapman,  101  U.  S.,755;  Dubuque  and 
Sioux  City  R.  R.  Co.  vs.  Des  Moines  Valley  R.  R.  Co.,  109  U.  S.,  329.) 

And  in  Wolsey  vs.  Chapman  it  was  specifically  held  that  an  order  of  reserva¬ 
tion  sent  out  from  the  appropriate  Executive  Department  in  the  regular  course 
of  business  is  the  legal  equivalent  of  the  President’s  own  order  to  the  same  ef¬ 
fect,  and  it  is  therefore  such  a  proclamation  by  the  President  reserving  land 
from  sale  as  the  law  contemplates.  (P.  770.) 

The  foregoing  decisions  recognize  the  abstract  right  of  the  Executive  Depart¬ 
ment  to  withhold  lands  from  entry  and  thus  to  suspend  the  operation  of  the 
public-land  laws  to  the  extent  of  such  withdrawals.  Necessarily  specific  cases 
are  treated  of  in  these  decisions  because  specific  cases  were  before  the  court, 
but  the  court  affirmed  in  these  cases  a  general  principle  which  it  applied  to  the 
particular  cases  decided.  This  was  the  right  of  the  Executive  to  reserve  lands 
from  entry.  Given  the  right  of  suspension,  the  only  question  that  remains  is 
that  of  tne  necessity  or  expediency  of  its  exercise — the  question  of  propriety. 
The  extent  of  suspensions  may  be  considered  in  connection  with  the  questions 
of  expediency  or  propriety,  but  does  not  enter  into  a  discussion  of  the  question 
of  abstract  right.  Neither  does  the  occasion  for  suspensions — the  reasons  why 
they  are  made — touch  the  fundamental  question  of  the  right  to  make  suspen¬ 
sions. 

If  a  suspension  of  public-land  entries,  wholly  or  in  part,  in  executive  discre¬ 
tion,  is  lawful  for  one  cause  deemed  sufficient  by  the  executive  authority,  it  is 
equally  lawful  for  another  cause  deemed  equally  sufficient.  It  is  the  judgment 
of  the  Executive  that  determines  the  sufficiency  in  either  case,  and  in  either  case 
the  question  whether  the  occasion  is  sufficient  or  not  is  one  affecting  the  respon¬ 
sibility  of  executive  officers  in  the  exercise  of  their  powers,  and  not  a  question 
of  the  power  itself.  Conceding  the  right  to  withdraw,  or  withhold  from  entry, 


29 


one  section  of  land,  or  any  subdivision  of  a  section  as  a  matter  incident  to  ad¬ 
ministrative  supervision  and  control,  the  right  to  withhold  any  larger  area  is 
equally  admitted.  It  can  not  be  said  that  a  suspension  of  entries  is  authorized 
for  a  limited  quantity  of  land,  but  not  authorized  for  a  larger  quantity  ;  that  it 
may  be  made  for  one  locality  and  not  for  another ;  for  a  part  of  one  State  or  Ter¬ 
ritory  and  not  for  the  whole  State  or  Territory  ;  or  that  it  may  be  made  for  a  por¬ 
tion  of  the  public  lands  and  not  for  all  of  them.  It  is  a  question  of  principle,  and 
not  a  question  of  the  extent  to  which  the  principle  will  be  applied.  Indeed,  a 
suspension  confined  to  certain  localities  and  in  favor  of  particular  interests  is  a 
far  more  dangerous  exercise  of  the  power  of  suspension  than  one  operating  gen¬ 
erally.  In  the  former  case  a  latitude  of  discretion  is  opened  which  may  be  abused 
for  the  promotion  of  favorite  interests  or  the  accomplishment  of  particular  pur¬ 
poses  not  of  general  or  public  import.  In  the  other  case  there  is  a  uniformity 
through  which  all  interests  are  affected  alike,  and  such  general  suspension  can 
be  founded  only  upon  public  considerations. 

Among  the  precedents  relied  upon  as  authority  for  the  circular  named 
the  following  are  cited: 

On  March  3,  1883,  Congress  passed  an  act  exempting  the  public  lands  in  the 
State  of  Alabama  from  the  operation  of  the  mineral  laws,  and  providing  for  the 
sale  of  lands  previously  reported  as  mineral,  and  for  the  disposal  under  agri¬ 
cultural  laws  of  unsold  lands  of  that  character  after  an  offering  at  public  sale. 

The  operation  of  this  act,  so  far  as  relates  to  sales  and  entries  of  lands  pi-evi- 
ously  reported  as  mineral,  has  been  in  suspension  up  to  the  present  date  in  an¬ 
ticipation,  as  I  am  advised,  of  ameixdatoi’y  legislation.  On  two  occasions  (one 
under  the  previous  and  one  under  the  present  administi*ation)  executive  procla¬ 
mations  have  been  issued  carrying  the  act  into  effect,  and  in  each  instance  the 
President  has  revoked  the  same. 

As  early  as  September  28,  1828,  Commissioner  Graham,  by  direction  of  the 
President,  instructed  the  register  of  the  land  office  at  Piqua,  Ohio,  to  reserve 
from  sale  the  lands  along  and  within  5  miles  of  what  was  supposed  would  be 
the  route  of  the  canal  from  Dayton  to  Lake  Erie,  in  aid  of  the  construction  of 
which  a  grant  of  land  had  been  made  to  the  State  of  Ohio  by  act  of  Congress 
approved  May  24, 1828.  This  reservation  embraced  about  500,000  acres. 

On  April  11,1844,  the  Commissioner  of  this  office  (Thomas  H.  Blake),  by  di¬ 
rection  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  iixstructed  tlie  pi-oper  disti’ict  land  offi¬ 
cers  in  Wisconsin  to  withdraw  from  sale  or  entry  for  any  purpose  whatever  all 
the  vacant  lands,  surveyed  and  unsurveyed,  situated  within  2  miles  of  the  Fox 
and  Wisconsin  Rivers,  in  anticipation  of  a  proposed  grant  by  Congress  to  the 
State  of  Wisconsin  to  aid  in  the  improvement  of  the  navigation  of  said  rivers. 

The  Congress  then  in  session  having  failed  to  make  the  proposed  grant,  the 
withdrawal  was  revoked  by  this  office  under  iixstructions  from  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury  dated  July  14,  1845,  having  been  in  force  for  more  than  a  year. 
This  withdrawal  covered  about  500,000  aci'es. 

During  the  years  1853  and  1854  a  great  quantity  of  land  was  withdrawn  from 
sale  or  entry  (except  for  valid  pre-emption  claims)  by  the  Commissioner  of  this 
office,  “by  oi'der  of  the  President,”  “issued  on  the  representations  and  at  the 
solicitation  of  members  of  both  Houses  of  Congress,”  in  anticipation  of  grants 
being  made  to  aid  in  the  construction  of  certain  proposed  railroads.  The  lands 
so  withdrawn  were  situated  in  ten  States  and  thirty-four  land  districts,  and 
amounted  to  about  31,000,000  acres,  according  to  Commissioner  Wilson’s  report 
for  1854,  as  follows : 

“At  the  instance  of  many  members  of  Congress  and  others,  about  21,000,000  of 
acres  in  several  of  the  land  States  had  been  withdrawn  from  the  market  in  an¬ 
ticipation  of  grants  for  raili’oad  and  other  internal  improvements.  As  such 
grants  were  not  made,  it  was  deemed  expedient  to  l'estore  these  masses  of  lands 
to  market,  especially  in  view  of  the  passage  of  the  bill  graduating  the  price  of 
the  public  lands,  and  this  has  been  done,  except  where  the  reservation  was  for  a 
fixed  period,  or  gx-ants  have  already  been  made.”  (Land  Office  Report,  1854, 
page  6.) 

Congress  havixxg  failed  to  make  the  proposed  grants,  the  lands  were  restored 
to  market,  by  order  of  the  President,  during  the  months  of  October,  November, 
and  December,  1 854. 

In  anticipation  of  a  grant  to  the  State  of  Iowa  to  aid  in  the  construction  of  four 
railroads  in  that  State,  Commissioner  Hendricks,  on  May  10,  1856,  issued  tele¬ 
graphic  instructions  to  the  registers  and  receivers  for  the  six  land  districts  in 
said  State,  withdi-awing  from  sale  or  location  all  lands  south  of  the  line  between 
townships  91  and  92,  comprisiixg  about  two-thirds  of  the  entire  State.  The  act 
making  the  grant  did  not  receive  the  signature  of  the  President  until  May  15, 
1856. 

During  the  year  1856,  in  anticipation  of  railroad  grants  to  the  States  of  Louisi¬ 
ana,  Michigan,  Wisconsin,  and  Mississippi,  the  Commissioner  of  the  General 
Land  Office  issued  telegraphic  instructions  to  the  local  officers  of  twenty  land 


30 


districts  in  said  States  suspending  from  sale  and  location  large  bodies  of  land,  as 
follows : 


State. 

Order  of  sus¬ 
pension. 

Date  of 
grant. 

Louisiana . 

May  31, 1856 
May  30, 1856 
May  29, 1856 
Aug.  9,1856 

June  3,1856 
June  3,1856 
June  3,1856 
Aug.  11,1856 

Michigan . 

W  isconsin . 

Mississippi . . 

The  lands  thus  withdrawn  in  anticipation  of  proposed  grants  amounted  to  at 
least  50,000,000  acres  exclusive  of  lands  previously  appropriated. 

During  the  same  year  railroad  grants  were  made  to  the  States  of  Florida  and 
Alabama,  and  in  1857  grants  for  several  roads  were  made  to  the  Territory  of 
Minnesota.  Long  before  any  of  the  roads  provided  for  in  said  grants  had  been 
located,  and  consequently  before  any  right  to  any  particular  lands  under  the 
grants  had  vested  in  the  States,  the  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office  is¬ 
sued  directions  to  the  local  officers  of  nineteen  land  districts  in  said  States  and 
Territories  suspending  the  sale  and  location  of  all  lands  within  what  was  sup¬ 
posed  would  be  the  limits  of  the  several  grants,  amounting  to  more  than  28,- 
000,000  acres,  exclusive  of  lands  previously  appropriated,  as  follows: 


State. 

Date  of  grant. 

Order  of  sus¬ 
pension. 

Florida . 

May  17,1856 

May  17, 1856 
June  3, 1856 
Mar.  3, 1857 

f  May  17,1856 
|  May  23, 1856 
-{  June  9,1856 
|  July  8, 1856 
t  Sept.  6, 1856 
May  17,1856 
June  19, 1856 
Mar.  7, 1857 

Alabama . 

Do . 

Minnesota . 

Representations  having  been  made  that  pre-emption  claims  for  speculative 
purposes  were  being  placed  upon  the  lands  within  the  limits  of  the  withdraw¬ 
als  in  the  States  of  Wisconsin,  Michigan,  Alabama,  and  Florida,  the  local  officers 
in  said  States  were,  on  December  16, 1856,  February  2,  February  13,  and  April  29, 
1857,  respectively,  dii’ected  by  the  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office  to 
refuse  to  receive  any  pre-emption  claims,  based  on  settlements  initiated  after 
the  receipt  by  them  of  said  orders,  on  large  bodies  of  lands  in  their  districts. 
These  suspensions  from  pre-emption  were  prior  to  the  location  of  the  several 
roads  in  whose  interest  they  were  made,  and  consequently  prior  to  the  attach¬ 
ment  of  any  right  under  the  grant  to  any  particular  lands.  This  inhibition 
against  the  right  of  pre-emption  affected  more  than  40,000,000  acres  of  public 
land. 

Mr.  Chairman,  these  cases  are  cited  as  illustrative  of  the  practice, 
where  railroads  were  to  be  benefited,  and  this  practice  has  been  con¬ 
tinued  down  to  a  very  recent  date. 

Now,  the  bill  repealing  these  laws  by  which  these  frauds  were  pos¬ 
sible  is  pending  in  this  Congress  and  has  passed  both  Houses,  and  only 
because  the  Senate  has  added  other  provisions  not  as  yet  accepted  by 
the  House  has  the  bill  failed  to  become  a  law. 

Under  these  precedents,  so  numerous  and  so  uniform,  and  the  power 
to  so  act  never  having  been  questioned,  and  the  Supreme  Court  having 
affirmed  their  validity  when  the  suspending  orders  were  issued,  I  in¬ 
sist,  sir,  that  the  Secretary  had  the  power  to  issue  the  circular,  and 
that  the  exigency  of  the  case  warranted  it. 


3L 


\ 


Mr.  Chairman,  a  single  word  more-and  I  am  done. 

The  object  of  all  this  Department  action  is  one  which  should  commend 
it  to  every  patriotic  heart.  It  is  the  attempt  to  save,  so  far  as  is  pos¬ 
sible,  the  remainder  of  the  public  lands  for  the  actual  settler,  direct 
from  the  Government  instead  of  through  the  intermediary  of  the  specu- 
lotor;  as  a  gift  from  the  nation  rather  than  a  purchase  from  a  trader; 
and  to  this  end  the  Secretary  and  Commissioner  have  given  their  best 
efforts  and  most  earnest  endeavor. 

They  desire  and  should  receive  the  hearty  support  of  every  honest 
citizen.  Indeed,  sir,  when  and  where  the  facts  are  known  they  do  re¬ 
ceive  it. 

I  deeply  regret  that  gentlemen  have  thought  it  necessary  to  make 
these  personal  attacks  upon  General  Sparks.  His  honesty,  his  personal 
integrity,  has  not  been  attacked;  indeed  it  has  been  conceded  in  this 
debate. 

It  goes  without  saying  that  he  has  no  motive  but  the  impulse  of  right¬ 
doing  in  the  administration  of  the  affairs  of  his  office  and  to  deserve 
public  approval  and  popular  commendation.  His  object  is  to  protect 
and  provide  for  the  poor  and  the  homeless,  and  the  war  which  he  has 
made  and  is  making  is  upon  the  lawless  and  the  depredator.  Good 
men  commend  him  and  his  course.  The  gentleman  from  Indiana  [Mr. 
Cobb]  has  read  an  earnest  letter  from  one  of  the  citizens  of  my  own 
State  of  whom  the  nation  feel  proud — Hon.  E.  B.  Washbuine — which 
speaks  volumes;  and  knowing  that  another  of  our  citizens,  whose  in¬ 
dorsement  would  be  a  matter  of  pride  to  any  man,  had  written  a  letter 
to  General  Sparks  of  similar  import,  I  have  procured  it  and  will  read 
so  much  of  it  as  relates  to  this  matter: 


Dear  General  : 
*  * 


Bloomington,  III.,  April  16,  1886. 


The  great  corporations  and  other  monopolies  have  for  many  years  been  stretch¬ 
ing  out  their  strong  and  unscrupulous  arms  over  the  public  lands  remaining  for 
enterprising  and  honest  settlers.  Millions  of  acres  of  this  domain  have  been 
seized  and  stolen,  and  I  have  to  say  this  robbery  could  not  have  succeeded  with¬ 
out  the  collusion  and  co-operation  of  agents  employed  to  protect  the  interests  of 
the  people. 

Astounding  frauds  have  been  perpetrated  and  are  now  constantly  coming  to 
light,  proving  how  vast  and  how  reckless  this  organized  plunder  has  been. 

Thousands  of  laboring  men  with  their  wives  and  children  have  been  denied 
the  chance  to  gain  a  livelihood  by  the  power  and  greed  of  heartless  and  rich 
corporations.  Immense  combinations  have  been  formed,  including  the  ties  of 
political  and  social  life,  for  a  common  object — to  break  down  all  attempts  at 
Washington  to  crush  out  a  venal  system  which  has  flourished  by  departmental 
indifference  or  favor. 

Whoever  stands  in  the  way  of  this  selfish  league  must  expect  to  be  confronted 
with  relentless  hostility  and  bitter  persecution. 

He  will  be  assailed  with  most  formidable  influences  outside  and  inside  the 
party  to  which  he  may  be  attached. 

Corruptionists  are  not  troubled  with  scruples.  They  use  politics  as  the  tools 
of  a  vile  traffic,  and  shift  from  side  to  side  as  interest  may  be  best  served  by 
convenient  change.  By  means  of  wealth  and  association  they  can  procure  what 
would  seem  externally  to  be  a  good  showing  to  help  the  worst  cause. 

Do  not  be  deterred  in  your  good  work  by  malicious  opposition  or  insidious 
injustice. 

Be  firm  and  temperate,  and  the  country  will  sustain  whatever  is  right. 

Throttle  land-grabbing  corporations  ;  punish  fraud  and  protect  the  plain  peo¬ 
ple's  Lincoln  loved  to  call  his  chief  support  in  time  of  peril  and  vexation. 

Very  truly, 

*  DAVID  DAVIS. 

General  W.  A.  J.  Sparks, 

Washington,  D.  C. 


The  harsh  criticism,  the  severe  censure,  and  the  denunciation  of  the 
Department  in  the  interest,  directly  or  indirectly,  of  these  fraudulent 


t 


32 


acquisitions  of  the  public  lands  may  well  be  borne  by  one  who  can  re¬ 
ceive  such  commendations  from  men  like  Washburne  and  Davis,  and  be 
may  with  serene  composure  and  confidence  await  the  finding  and  ver¬ 
dict  of  that  greater  tribunal  to  which,  as  public  servants,  we  are  all 
amenable  and  in  which  we  must  acquiesce,  the  judgment  of  the  Amer¬ 
ican  people. 


O 


